(navigation image)
Home American Libraries | Canadian Libraries | Universal Library | Community Texts | Project Gutenberg | Children's Library | Biodiversity Heritage Library | Additional Collections
Search: Advanced Search
Anonymous User (login or join us)
Upload
See other formats

Full text of "San Francisco container terminal modernization, final environmental impact report"

City and County otJSan Francisco 
Department of City Planning 



SAN FRANCISCO CONTAINER 
TERMINAL MODERNIZATION 

5 FINAL UOCUMENTS DEPT. 

I- • X r-. X FEB 1 1986 

Environmental Impact Report 

SArj FRANCISCO 
PUBLIC LIBRARY 

85.123E 

state Clearinghouse No. 86062513 



Draft EIR Publication Date: October 18, 1985 
Public Comment Period: October 18, 1985 to December 2, 1985 
Public Hearing Date: November 21, 1985 
Certification Date: January 23, 1986 




D 

i REF 

I 387.5442 

ges from the text of the Draft EIR are Indicated by a solid dot at the beginning 
of each revised section, paragraph or table. 



GLOSSARY OF TERMS 



Backland: Area inland from container cranes where container cargo can be stored. 

Berth ; Area of water adjacent to a wharf or pier in which a vessel docks. The 
typical length of a modern container berth is 1000 feet. 

Break-bulk : Cargo that is put into, or brought out of a ship's hold in small bulk 
quantities, usually on a pallet or in a cargo net, such as coffee, bananas and 
paper. Traditional method of cargo handling, usually conducted along finger piers. 

Bridging : Modern method of shipping cargo across the U.S. via intermodal or rail 
connections. Cargo is off loaded at ports and put on rail cars for destinations 
within the U.S. ( micro-bridge ) or to another port ( mini-bridge ) and continued 
shipment (via ship) to a destination such as Europe ( land bridge ). 

COFC : Container on flat car. New flat cars would permit two 40-foot containers 
(stacked two high) on a single rail car for more efficient transportation. Ten 40 
ft. containers can fit on new 280-foot articulated rail cars. 

Combination Berth : A berth with facilities that can accommodate a ship carrying 
container, break bulk and ro/ro cargo. 

Container Cargo : Commodities that are placed in steel containers (20 to 45 ft. x 8 
ft. X 8 to 9.5 ft.) for transport via ship, rail or truck. Containers have become 
the prevalent means of cargo handling in the Pacific basin and throughout most of 
the world. Containers are sturdy, weather-tight "boxes" that can be easily stacked 
either within or on top of a ship and quickly transfered to other transportation 
modes such as truck or train. Containers can be refrigerated for transport of 
perishable items (refers), 

CPS : Container freight station. A building/warehouse where containers can be 
opened and unpacked/repacked or transl oaded to a flatbed truck as necessary before 
continuing to their final destination. 

Dolphin : A group of piles driven close together and tied together to provide a 
fixed mooring point or a guide for ships coming into a narrow harbor entrance. 

Dry Bulk : Cargoes loaded or unloaded via conveyor belts, spouts or scoops; loose 
commodities such as rice, grain and various ores. 

FEU : see TEU, inside back cover. 



High, wide and heavy cargo : Rail cargo which cannot go over highways because of 
width and weight and/or too high to go under bridges, 

ICTF : Intermodal Container Transfer Facility, A rail yard where containers from 
other modes such as ships and trucks are transfered to rail cars or vice versa. 

Intermodal : Between different modes of transportation. State of the art cargo 
movement is predicated upon the quick transfer of containers between different 
shipping modes such as from ship to train or from train to truck. 

Land bridge : see Bridging. a 

LASH : Lighter Aboard Ship. A method of ocean transport which uses lighters (i,e, 
barges) capable of carrying smaller, standard-sized containers, general cargo or 
bulk cargo, LASH barges are taken aboard ship or unloaded by shipboard cranes. 



(continued inside back cover) 




3 1223 03529 7275 

City and County of San Francisco 
Department of City Planning 



450 McAllister Street 
San Francisco, OA 94102 



ADMINISTRATION 

(415) 558 - 5111 / 558-4656 

CITY PLANNING COMMISSION 
(415) 558 -4656 

PLANS AND PROGRAMS 
(415) 558 - 4541 

IMPLEMENTATION / ZONING 
(415) 558-3055 



SAN FRANCISCO CONTAINER TERMINAL MODERNIZATION 



FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT 




SAN FRANCISCO 
PUBLIC LIBRARY 



85.123E 



REFERENCE 
BOOK 

Not U) be taken from the Library 



lication Date: October 18, 1985 

od: October 18, 1985 to December 2, 1985 

ring Date: November 21, 1985 

cation Date: January 23, 1986 



# Changes from the text of the Draft EIR are indicated by a solid dot at the 
beginning of each revised section, paragraph or table. 



D REF 387.5442 S.a52l 
Sfr, Francisco 



terminal ^'-■""'"tainer 



S.F. aiBLIC LIBRARY 



3 1223 03529 7275 



TABLE OF CONTENTS 



CHAPTER I. SUMMARY 1 

CHAPTER II. PROJECT DESCRIPTION 6 

Purpose of Project 6 

Location of Project 7 

Phase 1 7 

Phase II 19 

Permits Required for the Project 22 

Construction Schedule 25 

Project Cost 26 

CHAPTER III. ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING 28 

Land Use Setting 28 

Historical Perspective 28 

The Port of San Francisco.... 31 

Existing Facilities and Use: North Terminal 37 

Existing Facilities and Use: Islais Creek Channel and Bridge 38 

Existing Facilities and Use: South Terminal 40 

Intermodal Container Transfer Facility 40 

Pier 98 Biology 42 

Transportation 44 

Air Quality 49 

Plans and Policies Relevant to the Proposed Project 52 

CHAPTER IV. IMPACTS 64 

Impacts Determined to be Insignificant 64 

Transportation Impacts 67 

i 



Table of Contents 



Emergency Services 95 

Train Noise Impacts 97 

Air Quality Impacts 100 

Biological Impacts 108 

Public Open Space 110 

Bay Fill and Fill Removal 113 

Potential Hazards of Methane from Decomposing Fill 116 

Business Displacement 118 

Growth Inducing Impacts 120 

CHAPTER V. MITIGATION MEASURES 122 

Transportation Mitigation 122 

Train/Emergency Vehicle Conflict Mitigation Measures 127 

Air Pollution Mitigation Measures 128 

Biological Mitigation Measures 129 

Public Access 130 

Dredging and Fill Removal Mitigation 131 

Methane Hazard Mitigation 132 

Settlement Mitigation 132 

Islais Creek Maritime Access 133 

Historic Resources Mitigation 133 

Sewage Mitigation 134 

CHAPTER VI. SIGNIFICANT ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS THAT CANNOT BE 

AVOIDED IF THE PROJECT IS IMPLEMENTED 135 

CHAPTER VII. ALTERNATIVES 135 

Alternative 1. No Project 135 

Alternative 2. 2.5 Acre Parcel Purchase / Addition at 

North Terminal 136 

Alternative 3. A Fixed Bridge Over Islais Creek 138 



1 1 



Table of Contents 



CHAPTER VIII. COMMENTS AND RESPONSES 140 

CHAPTER IX. EIR AUTHORS AND CONSULTANTS: 

ORGANIZATIONS AND PERSONS CONSULTED 185 

CHAPTER X. DISTRIBUTION LIST 189 

CHAPTER XI. CERTIFICATION MOTION 200 

CHAPTER XII. APPENDICES A-1 

A. Initial Study A-2 

B. Transportation Level of Service Definitions A-38 

C. Air Quality: San Francisco Air Pollutant Summary A-39 

D. Liner Services Calling the SECT A-41 

LIST OF FIGURES 

1. Project Location 8 

2. Present Site Plan 9 

3. Project Site Plan: Phase 1 10 

4. Project Site Plan: Phase II 11 

5. North Terminal Facilities 13 

6. Container Crane 14 

7. Port Packer and Transtainer 16 

8. View of South Terminal from Pier 98 20 

9. South Terminal Facilities 21 

10. Bay Area Port Facilities 32 

11. Subsidence at the North Terminal 39 

12. Pier 98: View to the East from Land End of Spit 43 

13. Roadways in Project Area 47 

14. Location of Bayshore Train Yard 90 

15. Potential Train Interference with Emergency Services 96 



iii 



Table of Contents 



16. South Terminal Soil Conditions in Area of New 

Terminals for Phase II 114 

17. Ground Cross-section Through Phase II Terminal Area 115 

18. Location of Additional Parcel Considered in 

Alternative 2 137 



LIST OF TABLES 

1. Projections of SFCT Throughput Capacity (short tons) 2 

2. Project Costs to be Covered by Bonds Approved in 1984 2 

3. Comparison of Cargo Handled at Ports of San Francisco 

and Oakland 3 

4. Port of San Francisco Total Cargo by Trade Route 3 

5. 1984 Port of San Francisco Revenue by Source 3 

6. Ten Largest Cargo-Handling Billings, Port of San 

Francisco, 1983-1984 3 

7. Characteristics of SFCT Imports and Exports 3 

8. Traffic Volumes on Amador Street 4 

9. Road Facilities Serving Piers 4 

10. Relationship of SFCT Project to Policies of the Bay Plan and 
Special Area Plan No. 1 5 

11. Relationship of the SFCT Project to the Seaport Plan 6 

12. 1985 V/C Ratios at Approaches to Critical Signalized 
Intersections Near SFCT (Peak Directions) 7 

13. Vehicle Use of Terminals by Type of Vehicle 7 

14. Trip Distribution of Terminal Traffic 7 

15. North Terminal Annual Vehicular Travel Generation 7 

16. South Terminal Annual Vehicular Travel Generation... 7 

17. Added Peak Hour Traffic Load Caused by Phase I Port 

Expansi on .' 7 

18. Added Peak Hour Traffic Load Caused by Phase II Port 

Expansi on , 7 



IV 



Table of Contents 



19. Added Peak Hour Traffic Load Caused by Deletion of 

Intertermi nal Bridge 77 

20. 1995 Traffic Estimates for 1-280 Ramps 77 

21. Estimated 1995 Freeway Volumes (Demand) 79 

22. Traffic Generation From New Generators 1995 81 

23. 1995 Peak Hour Traffic Load Added by New Land Development 

(Peak Direction) Vehicles per Hour 81 

24. Baseline 1995 V/C Ratios: Peak Di rections--Existing 1985 Signal 
Timing and Striping Conditions, No Added Port Traffic 84 

25. 1995 V/C Ratios: Peak Di recti ons--Timi ng and Striping 
Optimized, No Added Port Traffic 86 

26. Cumulative 1995 V/C Ratios: Phase I Port Traffic Included 86 

27. Effect of Intertermi nal Bridge on Cumulative 1995 V/C Ratios: 

Port Traffic Phases I and II Included 87 

28. Construction Schedule for Islais Creek Area Construction 

Projects 88 

29. Cumulative Traffic Impacts During Peak Construction Period 
of August-November 1986 (construction + non-construction 
traffic): V/C Ratios with Traffic Striping and Signal 

Timing Optimized 88 

30. Vehicular Delay Caused by ICTF Trains in San Francisco 93 

31. On-Street Parking Conditions 93 

32. Emissions from Heavy Duty Truck Trips Associated with 

Phase I and Phase II SECT Improvements (in tons per year) 104 

33. Train and Ship Contributions to Bay Area Air Pollution 

in 1979 and 2000 107 



V 



I 

) 



1 



'1 



I . Summa ry 



CHAPTER I. SUMMARY* 



Project Description 

The Port of San Francisco proposes to modernize its container handling 
facilities along the southern waterfront immediately north and south of 
# Islais Creek (see Figure 1, page 8, for project location). 

Phase I of the project would include conversion of the North Terminal (the 
area immediately north of Islais Creek) into a full "'"container cargo faci- 
lity with three container "'"berths, one "•"combination berth capable of 
handling containers or ''"break-bulk cargo, and up to four new electric con- 
tainer cranes. Leveling of existing ''"backland area, improved utility ser- 
vices and miscellaneous support building work would be part of this conver- 
sion. 

Phase I would also include an "'"Intermodal Container Transfer Facility (ICTF) 
at the south edge of the South Terminal (the area south of Islais Creek) 
for the direct transfer of cargo between ship and train without intermediate 
use of highway vehicles. The addition of new truck lanes, reconfiguration of 
the South Terminal gatehouse, repaving and improved utility services would 
permit increased "'"throughput at the South Terminal. 

A new drawbridge across Islais Creek on Port property would be built to 
avoid the need for trucking cargo over public streets to move it between 
the North Terminal and the South Terminal. 

* Please refer to the glossary located on the inside of the front and back 
covers for definitions of terms used throughout this document. Terms 
defined in the glossary are marked with a dagger ("'') at first use. 



1 



I. Summary 



At Pier 98, just south of the container terminals, an 11-acre spit extends 
into the Bay. Part of this area would be developed for public access, 
recreation, open space and habitat preserve. 

The North Terminal improvements (including two new cranes), the ICTF and the 
Pier 98 development would be funded by bonds approved by the voters on 
November 6, 1984. The new bridge and any additional cranes would be funded 

# from Port revenues or other sources. Figure 3, page 10, shows the facili- 
ties upon completion of Phase I. 

Phase II development, which has not yet been funded, would provide two con- 
tainer berths (one the conversion of an existing break-bulk berth) at the 

• south side of Islais Creek. Figure 4, page 11, shows the facilities upon 
completion of Phase II. 

Impacts 

The project would increase truck traffic on City streets and adjacent free- 
ways. With implementation of Phase I, the Level of Service at the intersec- 
tion of Third and Army Streets would decrease from B to C (see Appendix 
page A-38 for definitions) during the AM peak hour. The Levels of Ser- 
vice at the intersections of Third Street and Cargo Way and Third Street 
and Evans Avenue during the morning and afternoon peak periods and Third 
and Army Streets during the evening peak would not change. Implementation 
of Phase II would not cause any further change in Levels of Service at 
these intersections. New Port traffic would not affect 1-280 on-ramps at 
Evans Avenue and Pennsylvania Avenue or off-ramps at Evans Avenue and Army 
Street. 



2 



I. Summary 



1-280 and US 101 north of the San Mateo County line are expected to exceed 
capacity at peak hour in 1995 with or without the proposed project. Phases 
I and II combined would increase demand for 1-280 by 0.4% and for US 101 by 
0.3%. This increase would prolong the period of operation of these freeways 
at capacity and would divert some trips off of the freeways onto City 
streets. 

Increased train traffic associated with the ICTF would increase the proba- 
bility of train delay of emergency service vehicles on streets near the 
SFCT and would increase train noise along the train route. 

Development of public open space at Pier 98 would not affect any endangered 
species. 

Fill consisting of debris, sand and bay mud would be removed from the south 
side of Islais Creek in Phase II, resulting in a small increase in Bay water 
area. The fill would be removed and disposed of in a manner to minimize 
potential water quality and biological impacts. 

The interterminal bridge would require a U.S. Coast Guard Permit. The 
project would require approval by the Bay Conservation and Development 
Commi ssion. 

The proposed project is within the growth projections of the San Francisco 
Bay Area Seaport Plan. The EIR for this Plan found that expansion of faci- 
lities at the Port of San Francisco would have the least environmental 
impacts on air quality of any sites considered. 



3 



I. Summary 



Mitigation Measures 

Mitigation measures included in the project would encourage use of public 
transit and van pooling by cargo terminal operators, develop methods for 
notifying emergency services of train movements which could impede emergency 
vehicle movement, minimize the biological impact of human presence at Pier 
98, and provide safety measures for construction on fill where some methane 
is being generated. The project would shift the modal split for cargo move- 
ment from truck to rail, thus decreasing traffic, air and energy impacts 
caused by increased maritime activity. 

The bridge over Islais Creek would constitute 0.5 to 1.1 acre of fill which 
would be more than offset by Port fill credits from the removal of piers. 
Removal of 0.89 acres of fill in Islais Creek during Phase II would offset 
a portion of the fill at Pier 98. The status of the existing fill at Pier 
98 is a complex issue which would be evaluated by BCDC in their permit 
process. 

Alternatives 

The No Project Alternative would have greater traffic, air and energy con- 
sumption impacts than the proposed project, because a greater percentage of 
cargo would travel by truck and less by rail than with the project. 

Acquisition of a 2.5 acre f • eel near the North Terminal would facilitate 
design of the entrance to the Terminal for minimum truck-handling time and 
provide more truck queueing space on Port property. The Port may decide to 
implement this alternative in the future after examining the functioning of 
the Phase I redesign of the North Terminal entrance. 

4 



I 

I 

I . Summa ry 

A fixed interterminal bridge over Islais Creek was considered and dropped 
in favor of the proposed drawbridge, after consultation with the Coast ( 
Guard, in consideration of the impacts of closing the west end of Islais 
Creek to navigation. 



5 



II. Project Description 



CHAPTER II. PROJECT DESCRIPTION * 



Purpose of Project 

The Port of San Francisco proposes to modernize its '•"container handling 
facilities along the southern waterfront in the area of the North and South 
Container Terminals (formerly Pier 80/Army Street Terminal and Piers 94-96, 
respectively). The Port is proposing three cargo handling facility improve- 
ments and a waterfront open space area. The project would be developed in 
two phases. 

Improvements are being proposed for the San Francisco Container Terminal 
(+SFCT) in order to accommodate projected demands of shipping lines now 
using SECT facilities and to maintain the Port's current market share of 
"•"container cargo. The project has been formulated with consideration for 
market demand, the desires of current customers, anticipated needs of pre- 
sent and future customers, engineering design constraints, applicable regu- 
lations, the necessity to minimize disruption of current operations, flexi- 
bility to adapt to possible future changes in needs, and cost. Typical 
vessel occupancy of the ''"berths is expected to be 60-65%, with a maximum of 
8 0-8 5% .2 

The ultimate goal of any container operation is to achieve maximum '•'through- 
put at minimum cost. The proposed project would enable, the Port to handle 



* Please refer to the glossary located on the inside of the front and back 
covers for definitions of terms used throughout this document. Terms 
defined in the glossary are marked with a dagger ("I") at first use. 



6 



II. Project Description 



more cargo vessels, reduce the handling time per vessel and per container, 
reduce handling cost per container, and reduce vessel and train turn-around 
time. 

Shippers pay the Port four types of fees. They pay "dockage" for the time 
a vessel is tied up at a berth, "wharfage" for passage of cargo over the 
wharf, "demurrage" for any time the cargo spends on dock beyond allowed 
free time, and container crane rental. Wharfage is assessed per '•'metric ton 
or per cubic meter, depending on the commodity, or per container. Wharfage 
and demurrage costs are generally greater than dockage costs. Decreases in 
time to handle containers increase the number of payload trips per ship per 
year and decrease dockage and demurrage costs per container and, therefore, 
make a port facility more attractive to potential clients. 

Location of Project 

The SFCT consists of the North Container Terminal, a 69-acre site north of 
Islais Creek on all of Assessor's Block 4304, and the South Terminal, 
approximately 160 acres south of Islais Creek on all of Assessor's Block 
4502A, Both sites are active port terminals in an M-2 (Heavy Industrial) 
District and a 40-X Height and Bulk District. The locations of the existing 
and proposed facilities are shown on Figures 1-4, pages 8 to 11. 

Phase I 

North Terminal 

The North Terminal would be modernized into a full container cargo facility 
with three container berths (N2, N3 and N4) and one "'"combination or "combo" 
berth (Nl) capable of handling containers or '•'break-bulk cargo. Capacity 
to handle '•'Ro-Ro (roll -on-rol 1 -of f ) cargo would be retained at berth N4. 

(text continues on page 12 after figures) 
7 



II. Project Description 




II. Project Description 




10 



II. Project Description 




II. Project Description 



No new berths would be constructed; one existing break-bulk berth (Nl) 
would be converted to a container berth (see Figure 5, page 13, for loca- 
tions of berths). 

Up to four new 100-ft. electric gage container cranes and container retriev- 
al equipment would be installed. Some or all of the existing, smaller, 
34-ft. cranes may be retained. The gage of a crane refers to the spacing 
between the rails on which it runs. Rails permit the cranes to be moved 
from berth to berth as needed to load and unload vessels (see photo of 
crane in operation in Figure 6, page 14). The new cranes would run on the 
existing wharf-edge rail and a new, land-side rail. New piles would be 
driven to support the new rail. 

Six trucks can operate between the legs of a 100-ft. gage crane, whereas 
two trucks can maneuver between the legs of a 34-ft. crane. Containers can 
be transferred to or from trucks more efficiently by 100 ft. cranes. 

One of the existing three cargo storage sheds (Shed C, approximately 125,000 
sq. ft.) would be demolished to increase '''backland storage area, improve con- 
tainer movement, and provide improved access to berth N2. All or portions 
of two existing storage sheds (A and D) would remain to provide covered 
storage for break-bulk, combo and Ro-Ro cargo. 

Two buildings, up to 4,000 sq. ft. each, with offices, lunchrooms and rest- 
rooms would be constructed for use by longshoremen and shipping clerks. 
One would be in front of berth N2 and the other would be between berths N3 
and N4 on the south side of the North Terminal. The buildings would be 
less than 40 ft. tall. The existing administration, maintenance and ser- 
vice buildings would remain. The terminal entrance and gate house would be 

12 



II. Project Description 




13 



II. Project Description 




II. Project Description 



modified to alleviate existing truck congestion and delays at the entrance. 
Backland area for container storage would be improved, including modifica- 
tions of lighting, electrical, and other utility systems, with provisions 
for container handling by top loaders ("''port packers), mobile rubber-tired 
yard gantry cranes ('♦'transtainers) or straddle carrier operations (see 
Figure 7, page 16, for pictures of transtainers and port packers). 

About 18 acres of the terminal yard, which have undergone settlement, would 
be filled with gravel, releveled and paved with asphalt or removable, inter- 
locking concrete paving blocks. The latter could be lifted before and 
reinstalled after leveling operations necessitated by future settlement. 
An underground fuel storage tank could be part of a fueling station for 
# diesel equipment such as port packers. 

There would be storage space and associated handling equipment for 20-, 40- 
and 45-foot containers. The backland area would be designed to accommodate 
one and one half times the "immediate projected ^throughput needs on peak 
days. "2 

A relocated entrance gate would alleviate some of the existing inbound 
truck traffic congestion by providing increased truck queuing space. 

Maintenance dredging at the existing N2 {at the Bay end of the North Termi- 
nal) and N3 (on Islais Creek) berths would maintain access for vessels with 
a draft of 39 feet. Surveys indicate a depth of approximately 40 feet 
below "'"mean lower low water (MLLW) at these berths. 

1984 SFCT-North throughput was 580,000 ''"revenue tons/year, or about 390,000 
"•"short tons. The capacity would increase from 540,000 short tons in 1985 
to 810,000 short tons/yr. in 1988 (a potential increase of 50% over 1986) 



15 



II. Project Description 




16 



II, Project Description 



and to 1,000,000 short tons/yr. in 1995 with implementation of Phase I of 
the proposed project (an increase of 85% over 1985 and a 23% increase over 
1988). 

Islais Creek Bridge 

A drawbridge across Islais Creek would extend Illinois Street southward, 
joining the North and South Terminals, to expedite rail and truck trips 
between the two terminals and to keep short-haul traffic off City streets. 
This would eliminate time and costs associated with transfer from port 
packer on Port property to truck on City street to port packer on Port pro- 
perty. It would also eliminate the transfer of cargo documentation, cus- 
toms clearances, and changes of labor unions and contractors, all of which 
are necessary when containers are transferred from the terminals to city 
streets and back again. The bridge would carry two lanes of truck traffic 
and one set of train rails, with provision for two more lanes of truck 
traffic and a second rail line. 

South Terminal 

The existing gatehouse at SFCT-South has five inbound truck lanes, three 
outbound lanes and three scales to weigh containers. The existing building 
houses customs and other offices. Separation of entry to Piers 94 and 96 
would be achieved by adding a canopy to an existing administration building 
together with eight new inbound lanes and five new outbound lanes. The new 
lanes would serve Pier 96 and the old lanes would serve Pier 94. No new 
scales would be added because transtainers with built-in scales to weigh 
the containers would be used at Pier 96. SFCT-South would be regraded and 
repaved as needed due to settlement and increased weight of equipment and 
cargo to be handled; utilities and light standards would be installed or 



17 



II. Project Description 



relocated as needed. A fence would separate the two Piers. 
Intermodal Container Transfer Facility 

A permanent on-dock "''Intermodal Container Transfer Facility (ICTF) would be 
developed on approximately 60 acres along the southwest edge of the South 
Terminal, expanding the capacity of existing facilities to provide the Ter- 
minal with direct rail access for '''land-bridge movement of containers 
("•"COFC, container on flat car, and ''"TOFC, trailer on flat car). The tracks 
would accommodate a 25-car single or double stacked train of 100 '''FEU 
capacity. The 2500- to 3000-ft .-long trains would be more frequently 
outbound than inbound because in-bound cargo tends to arrive in shorter 
segments which accumulate as a vessel is expected, while shiploads of 
containers are outbound at the same time. 

There would be a maximum of 32 shuttle train operations per day between the 
ICTF and the Bayshore train yard with the ICTF operating at capacity. A 
maximum of ten assembled '''unit trains per day would travel between the Bay- 
shore yard and San Jose. The ICTF would be designed to handle strings of 
up to 25 cars for assembly into unit trains at a train yard south of San 
Francisco in a "'"si i ng-shot operation rather than full 50-car unit trains. 
The design of the ICTF is under development. 

The ICTF is expected to handle about 70,000 short tons of cargo in 1985, 
using March 1985 as the basis for projection. Throughput capacity is 
projected to increase to 1,120.000 short tons in 1988 (an increase of 15 
times over 1985) and to 2,240,000 short tons in 1995 (a doubling of 1988 
throughput) with implementation of Phase I of the proposed project. 3 



18 



II. Project Description 

Intermodal containers arriving or departing the ICTF without passing over 
the dock are termed domestic ICTF traffic. This cargo generally arrives by 
train and goes directly by truck to Bay Area destinations, generally within 
200 miles. 

The facility would include a container freight station (+CFS) and an automo- 
bile parking lot. The 100,000 sq. ft. CFS would probably be built in two 
50,000 sq. ft. stages. It would be a customs secure area for unpacking and 
repacking containers before they reach their final destinations. The CFS 
would be used for containers on both trucks and rail cars. A fueling 
facility with underground or surface mounted tanks would provide diesel 
fuel for container handling equipment and yard transportation vehicles. 

Public Access to San Francisco Bay 

At Pier 98 an 11-acre man-made spit extends into the Bay. A tidal marsh 
has developed on the south side. Some of the area would be developed for 
public access, recreation, open space and habitat preserve. Maritime acti- 
vities at the South Terminal would be visible from this area (see Figure 8, 
page 20). Off-street parking would be provided for the public. This faci- 
lity has not been designed yet. Biological constraints on the design are 
covered by mitigation measures on page 129. 

Phase II (see Figures 4, page 11, and 9, page 21) 

Two container berths would be added to the South Terminal along the south 
side of Islais Creek through conversion of an existing break-bulk berth, 
addition of a new berth, and installation of four new container cranes. 
Some existing fill on the south side of Islais Creek would be removed to 
widen the channel in order to provide both maneuvering room for two vessels 



19 



II. Project Description 




20 



II. Project Description 



Figure 9. South Terminal Facilities 




PIER 98 (PUBLIC ACCESS) Source: Bendix Envi 

PHASE I Research. Inc. 



21 



II. Project Description 



at berths opposite each other and a more stable area on which to build 
shore facilities. This would result in a decrease in Bay fill. Islais 
Creek may be dredged two feet deeper from its mouth to the Phase II berths, 
deepening it from 40 to 42 feet, to provide access for deeper draft vessels. 
No additional dredging would occur west of the Third Street Bridge. Ships 
would continue to be able to pass up Islais Creek when vessels were moored 
at opposite berths of the North and South Terminals. 

A mooring "^dolphin would be used at the mouth of Islais Creek in order to 
avoid placing a pile-supported wharf on the unstable fill area at the north- 
east corner of the South Terminal. 

Development of these berths would require relocation of the existing KSFO 
radio tower and other existing Port tenants. Three of the six tenants are 
on monthly leases (see Fig. 9, page 21, for locations of tenants). 

Without Phase II development, throughput of the South Terminal is expected 
to increase from 570,000 short tons in 1984 to 910,000 short tons in 1988 
(an increase of 60% over 1984). Phase II would allow SFCT-South to handle 
an additional 910,000 short tons of cargo in 1988, doubling the throughput 
capacity of the Terminal. A summary of projected Phase I and Phase II 
throughput is given in Table 1, page 23. 

Permits Required for the Project 

Under the authority of the General Bridge Act of 1946 and the River and Har- 
bors Act of 1899, the Coast Guard requires Bridge Permits approving loca- 
tion and plans for bridges affecting nav.igable waters of the U.S. Pursuant 
to this responsiblity, the Coast Guard will act as Lead Federal Agency for 
the proposed project, with particular concern for the effects a bridge over 

22 



II. Project Description 



Table 1. Projections of SFCT Throughput Capacity (short tons) 

Terminal 1984^ Annual Throughput Capacity 

Component Cargo 198B itsB 1995 

SFCT-North, Present 390,000 

SFCT-North, Phase I 540,000 810,000 1,000,000^ 

ICTF, Phase I^ 70,000^ 1,120,000 2,240,000 

SFCT-South, Present 570,000 

SFCT-South, Phase I 910,000 910,000 910,000 

SFCT-South, Phases I & II 1,820,000 

SFCT-North + 2,820,000 
South I & II 



1. Short tons calculated from revenue tons in Port of San Francisco, "Ca- 
lendar Year Tonnage by Facility," April 4, 1985, divided by a factor of 
1.5 to convert to approximate equivalent short tons. Actual cargo sta- 
tistics are recorded only in revenue tons, 

2. Capacity in short tons, assuming no empty containers and an average of 
13 short tons/container. From Vi ckerman/Zachary/Mi 1 ler, "Container 
Throughput Study," May 15, 1985. 

3. Note that most ICTF cargo also passes through one of the Terminals so it 
is not additive with Terminal throughput except for domestic cargo which 
is a relatively small portion of the ICTF total. Capacity figures from 
Vi ckerman/Zachary/Mil ler, "Container Throughput Study," April 1985. 

4. 1985 estimate based on March 1985 throughput. 

5. SFCT-North capacity increases with time towards its theoretical through- 
put capacity as backland constraints are removed. 

Source: Bendix Environmental Research, Inc. 



23 



II. Project Description 



Islais Creek would have on existing and potential public rights of naviga- 
tion on the Creek. All Coast Guard bridge actions require compliance with 
the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). 

If the project is found to affect an endangered or threatened wildlife spe- 
cies, a formal consultation with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service would 
be required under §7 of the Endangered Species Act and the Fish and Wild- 
life Coordination Act. 

The Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) has jurisdiction over fill, dredging and 
dredge spoils disposal under §§9 and 10 of the River and Harbors Act and §404 
of the Clean Water Act. The Corps' primary role in Phase I would be as com- 
menting agency in the Coast Guard permit process. Corps permits would be 
required for any dredging and spoils disposal activities in Phase I not co- 
vered by existing permits and for dredging, fill removal, dredge spoils and 
fill disposal in connection with proposed Phase II activities. Corps per- 
mits may be required for crane erection in both phases. 

State Lands Commission (SLC) jurisdiction over submerged lands and stream 
beds affected by the project is delegated to the City and County of San 
Francisco by the Burton Act. The SLC is kept apprised of project plans by 
the Port. 

The Bay Conservation and Development Commission (BCDC) would require a per- 
mit pursuant to its reponsibilities under the McAteer-Petri s Act and would 
be concerned with compliance with that Act, the San Francisco Bay Area Sea- 
port Plan, and the San Francisco Bay Plan (in particular the Special Area 
Plan #1 covering the area of the San Francisco shoreline in which the pro- 
ject is located). BCUC would be particularly concerned with provision of 

24 



II. Project Description 



public access to the Bay at Pier 98. BCDC would inform the Coast Guard 
about project compliance with §307 of the federal Coastal Zone Management 
Act of 1972. The Port would request amendment of the Seaport Plan to 
delete the marine terminal designation of Pier 98. This request would be 
discussed by the Seaport Planning Advisory Committee and would be subject 
to approval by both the Metropolitan Transportation Commission and the Bay 
Conservation and Development Commission, 

The Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD) would provide the 
Coast Guard with a determination of consistency with the State Implementa- 
tion Plan and the Bay Area Air Quality Plan pursuant to §§176 and 309 of 
the Clean Ai r Act. 

The Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB), under powers delegated by 
the Environmental Protection Agency and the State Water Resources Control 
Board, would certify compliance with §401 of the Federal Water Pollution 
Control Act of 1972 to the Coast Guard. 

After certification of this EIR, the Port Commission would formally decide 
whether to undertake the project; declare Pier 98 surplus land under the 
Burton Act, so that it could be used for public open space; apply for and 
accept a BCDC permit for the project; authorize planning, detailed design 
and construction funds; and issue building permits for the project. 

Construction Schedule 

Construction would proceed during continued operation of the SECT. Comple- 
tion of the ICTF is scheduled for 1987. Completion of the bridge is tenta- 
tively scheduled for 1987-1989. The ICTF may operate indefinitely without 
a bridge. Timing of bridge construction would depend on the actual rate of 

25 



II. Project Description 



throughput increases, the volume of interterminal traffic and cost-effec- 
tiveness. Completion of North Terminal berth and container storage facili- 
ties is scheduled for 1987. Two cranes would be installed at that time. 



25a 



II. Project Description 



i 



Table 2. Project Costs to be Covered by Bonds Approved in 1984 



SFCT-North 



Yard improvements 



$17,5 mil lion 



Two cranes 



5.5 mil lion 



ICTF 



6.4 mil lion 



SFCT-South 



Yard improvements 



1.5 mil lion 



Bond costs and required reserves 



7.1 million 



TOTAL 



$38.0 million 



Source: Port Commission of San Francisco, ^Official Statement Relating to 
$42,500,000 Port Commission of San Francisco Revenue Bonds, Series C, 1984," 
p. 19; Benjamin Kutnick, Fiscal Officer, Port of San Francisco, telephone 
conversation of August 5, 1985; and Bendix Environmental Research, Inc. 



Additional cranes would be installed as demand developed. A decision on 
timing for construction of Phase II would be made by the Port Commission on 
the basis of the timing of increased steamship line demand for ICTF facili- 
ties and of availability of funds and may not be made until after 1990. 

Project Cost 



Phase I costs to be covered by the $42.5 million in bonds approved by the 
voters of San Francisco in 1984 are shown in Table 2, above. The interter- 
minal bridge would cost about $4 million and would be financed out of 
future Port revenues or other sources. Phase II would cost about $50 mil- 
lion. It would be eligible for California Urban Waterfront Area Restora- 



26 



II. Project Description 



tion Financing Authority Bonds (often referred to as CUWARFA bonds). ^ A 
decision on a financing mechanism would be made at the time of the decision 
to implement Phase II. 



PROJECT DESCRIPTION NOTES: 

1. Based on assumption of 250 eight-hour days/year, Eugene M. Blazik, Pro- 
ject Manager, Vickerman/Zachary/Mil ler, telephone conversation of August 
27, 1985. 

2. Vi ckerman/Zachary/Mi 1 ler, "Executive Summary, San Francisco Container 
Terminal (North Terminal), Engineering Feasibility Study," March 1985, 
page 27, available for public review in the project file at the Depart- 
ment of City Planning, 450 McAllister Street. 

3. Vickerman/Zachary/Miller, "SECT Throughput Capacity Study," March 3, 
1985, 1 page, available for public review at the Department of City 
Planning, 450 McAllister Street, 

4. The Coastal Conservancy plays a key role in carrying out the provisions 
of SB 997, 1983, which created the low-cost bond financing mechanism 
for CUWARFA bonds. The interest on bonds issued for qualifying pro- 
jects is generally exempt from federal and state taxes. As a result, 
the bonds are customarily sold at interest rates two to five percentage 
points lower than the prevailing rates of conventional financing. The 
financing is intended to facilitate projects that promise benefits with 
respect to environmental enhancement and local economic stimulation. 



27 



III. Setting 



CHAPTER III. Environmental Setting 



Land Use Setting 

The project area is on the eastern shoreline of San Francisco immediately 
north and south of Islais Creek. The Port of San Francisco has jurisdic- 
tion over the shoreline. Inland from the maritime facilities, and along 
portions of the shore without maritime development, rail and industrial 
uses dominate. Western Pacific and Southern Pacific rail yards serve the 
Port and other San Francisco-based activities. Many of the industrial uses 
involve low intensity distribution functions such as wholesaling and stor- 
age. 

The shoreline from Eighteenth Street to Donahue Street is zoned M-2, Heavy 
Industrial. Near Islais Creek the M-2 zoning extends west to the James 
Lick Freeway. North of the project site the nearest M-1, Light Industrial 
District, is about a third of a mile northwest and the nearest residential ly 
zoned area is an RC-2, Residential -Commercial Combined District: Moderate 
Density, which extends along the west side of Third Street part of the way 
between Twenty-second and Twenty-third Streets almost a mile north of the 
site. South of Islais Creek there are several M-1 areas south of Evans 
Avenue. The nearest residential district is an RH-1, Residential, House 
District, One-Family, approximately one half mile from the ICTF site. 

Historical Perspective 

Prior to 1960 the most common form of cargo handling was break-bulk. This 
type of shipping has been used for hundreds of years. A ship would travel 



28 



III. Setting 

directly to a port and dock alongside a finger pier, like those lining San 
Francisco's waterfront, to unload goods. Goods were moved out of a ship's 
hold in small units; they would then be stored inside a pier shed, out of 
the weather, until they could be moved by truck or railcar to their final 
destination. Similarly, outbound, export cargo would move by rail or truck 
to pier shed to be loaded on ships. This type of cargo movement dictated 
the size of ships that could most efficiently transport the cargo as well 
as the size and layout of shore facilities that would store the cargo. 

During the late 1950s and early 1960s, watertight steel containers for 
cargo were developed and within ten years emerged as the dominant mode of 
cargo movement over the world's oceans. Containers have become popular 
because they are climate-controlled, customs-secure units that can be 
easily stored and moved by various transportation modes. Containers func- 
tion like "envelopes" in the port: each one can be packed by the exporter, 
addressed to a particular party or location, and shipped quickly by sea, 
rail and truck to the intended receiver. If necessary, individual con- 
tainers can be kept refrigerated from origin to destination, making pos- 
sible the transport of perishable items. Containers can be opened at spe- 
cial freight stations, where goods can be added to or removed from con- 
tainers before they reach their final destination. A small container 
vessel has a storage capacity of 1500 "•'TEUs (twenty-foot-long containers). 
Lykes Lines, the largest user of the SFCT-North Terminal, has purchased six 
ships rated at ZbOO TEU-capaci ty , which can actually carry 4000 TEUs. 

Containerized cargo has changed ocean transport routes and brought rail- 
roads into play as an integral component'of worldwide shipping. In Pacific 
Basin trade, cargo arrives via larger and larger container ships. These 

29 



III. Setting 



ships dock only at major west coast ports, such as San Francisco, to off- 
load their cargos. Goods are then either absorbed by the regional market 
or transported inland via truck and rail. 

An important development in this type of cargo transport has been the land- 
bridge concept. Container ships seldom pass through the Panama Canal any 
longer. Instead, steamship companies land cargo at west coast ports and 
use transcontinental rail connections as a "bridge" from the Pacific Ocean 
to the Atlantic Ocean. When containers arrive by rail at east and Gulf 
coast ports they may again be loaded on ships to continue their journey to 
Europe. Deregulation of railroad freight rates and the development of new 
rail technology, such as rail cars capable of handling containers stacked 
two high, have contributed to the increased competitiveness of rail trans- 
port versus truck transport on long hauls. Transit times for the ocean 
voyage and the rail trip across the country are fairly well established; 
the greatest potential for shortening total trip time lies in the procedures 
for container transfer between ship and train. 

Just as break-bulk cargo operations dictated the type and size of cargo 
vessels used and the type of shore facilities needed, so do containerized 
cargo operations. Movement of container cargo calls for deep water berths 
to handle ships of 2,500 TEUs and greater capacity, large amounts of back- 
land area for container storage and a rail connection to distribute and 
gather the container cargo. - 

In the period from 1971 to 1981, the Pacific states' waterborne trade has 
grown by 132%. Containerized trade, a portion of this percentage, has in- 
creased 256% during the same period. ^ The west coast of the United States 
is the only sector of the world where there have been yearly trade in- 



30 



III. Setting 



creases despite the world-wide economic slowdown over the last three years. 
Cargo handled on the West Coast has risen from 76 million revenue tons 
(mrt) in 1976 to 133 mrt in 1984. 

Most of the increase in Pacific Coast container trade has been absorbed by 
the Ports of Los Angeles/Long Beach and Seattl e/Tacoma and, locally, by the 
Ports of Oakland and San Francisco. Smaller amounts of containerized cargo 
are handled in the Bay Area by Richmond, Redwood City and Encinal Terminal 
in Alameda (See Figure 10, page 32, for location of these ports). Four of 
the six Bay Area port operators are public: Oakland, Redwood City, Rich- 
# mond and San Francisco. Benicia and Encinal are privately owned. Encinal no 
longer handles container cargo. The Port of Richmond has the highest tonnage 
in the Bay Area because of its petroleum products traffic, which has been 
declining due to a decline in oil consumption. Richmond is also the larg- 
est automobile import/export port in the Bay Area. The Port of Redwood 
City handles less than 5% of the tonnage that Richmond handles. At present, 
Tacoma is the only Pacific Coast port with on-dock intermodal container 
facilities. Seattl e/Tacoma is one day's travel time closer to Far-Eastern 
ports than the Bay Area on standard shipping routes. 

In the last ten years, Los Angeles cargo throughput has increased 100% and 
Bay Area throughput has increased 19%. Bay Area container cargo revenue 
has not increased as fast as predicted by the Army Corps of Engineers in 
their 1981 Bay Area Cargo Forecasts. 2 

The Port of San Francisco 

The Port of San Francisco's maritime activities Include container and break- 
bulk cargo handling, commercial fishing, ship repair, passenger cruise 

31 



III. Setting 



FigurelO. Bay Area Port Facilities 




service, foreign trade zone activities and marinas. Non-maritime activi- 
ties include commercial recreation, offices and Fisherman's Wharf commer- 
cial activities. 

In the early 1960s, when the other Pacific Coast ports were developing 
container handling capabilities, the Port of San Francisco chose to pursue 
a course as a specialty port and cater to the needs of shipping lines that 
did not carry containerized cargo. This included a '•"LASH (Lighter Aboard 
Ship) terminal at Pier 96 and retention of break-bulk operations tradition- 
ally conducted on the finger piers lining the waterfront. The demand for 
the specialized harbor that was envisioned for San Francisco did not mate- 
rialize. As a result of this decision, San Francisco experienced a net 
decline in the tonnage handled by the Port until 1978. 



32 



III. Setting 



During the 1970s the Port installed container cranes on two of its Southern 
Waterfront Terminals: Pier 80, a combination break-bulk and container ter- 
minal, and Piers 94/96. Each crane theoretically can move 50 containers 
per hour. Cranes achieve 60-75% of their theoretical capacity of container 
moves because they have functions other than moving containers, such as 
moving hatch covers and moving between hatches. 

Since the beginning of the 1980s, San Francisco has increased its effort to 
recapture its historic market share of trade by securing use agreements 
with steamship lines engaged in trade with the Far East/Pacific Basin. 
From 1980 to 1983 container tonnage handled by the Port of San Francisco 
has risen an average of 13% each year.-^ 

San Francisco cargo tonnage increased for the sixth consecuti ve year in 1984. 
Total tonnage handled in San Francisco in 1984 was 2,160,000 metric revenue 
tons, a ten percent increase over 1983. The Port of San Francisco handles 
less cargo than the Port of Oakland which handled 13,800,000 metric revenue 
tons in 1984, for an increase of 17% over 1983. 

San Francisco container tonnage increased 13% from 1983 to 1984 and now 
makes up 75% of San Francisco general cargo^ and nearly 11% of Northern 
California's container revenue tonnage. San Francisco container facilities 
account for about 25% of the total Bay Area throughput capacity. See Table 
3, page 35, for a comparison of the cargo handled at the ports of San 
Francisco and Oakland. All Bay Area ports compete with the Ports of 
Seattl e/Tacoma and Los Angeles/Long Beach. 

• 

The proposed project, together with natural deep water channels, available 
underdeveloped land, rail access, and ability to expand without net new Bay 

33 



III. Setting 



fill, would put San Francisco on better competitive terms with other ports 
in attracting new business. 

Transpacific trade is the Port's dominant route, see Table 4, page 35. San 
Francisco handled 78% of the Latin American cargo in the Bay Area in 1984. ^ 
The main Latin American imports are coffee, meat, building board and cocoa 
beans; the main exports to Latin America are milk products, chemicals, 
vegetables, wood products and seeds. The 124,000 metric revenue tons of 
Latin American trade were a 3% increase over the previous peak year, 1982 
(120,000 mrt). 

A Southern Waterfront Master Plan, prepared by consultant Vickerman/Zachary/ 
Miller and adopted by the San Francisco Port Commission in 1982, recom- 
mended development programs to retain current users and attract new Port 
customers. The Plan provided for maintenance of the Port of San Francis- 
co's share of Bay Area container cargo, expansion consistent with the 
MTC/BCDC Seaport Plan, and improvement of rail service to the southern 
waterfront. 

Port revenue sources are shown in Tables 5 and 6, page 36. The characteris- 
tics of SFCT imports and exports are shown in Table 7, page 37. The South 
Terminal currently handles a higher percentage of container cargo than does 
the North Terminal. See Appendix D, page A-41 for a list of lines calling 
at the North and South Terminals. 

San Francisco voters approved a $42.5 million Revenue Bond issue for expan- 
sion and modernization of Port facilities in November, 1984. About ninety 
percent of this bond issue is targeted for modernization of the SFCT and 
ICTF. 



34 



III. Setting 



Table 3. Comparison of Cargo Handled at Ports of San Francisco and Oakland 



Characteri stic 


San Francisco 


Oakland 


1984 metric revenue tons handled 


2,160,000-^ 


1 "3 Qnn nnr>2 


1984 % general cargo tonnage increase 
over 1983 


10% 


i 1%'- 


1983 container cargo % of general cargo 


71% 


86%2 


1984 container cargo % of general cargo 


75% 


84%2 


1984 % container cargo increase over 1983 


13% 


15%2 


1984 % total Bay Area cargo 


9%1 


44%1 



1. Louise Anderson, [marine] Traffic Analyst, Port of San Francisco, tele- 
phone conversation of August 2, 1985. 

2. Based on data from Ray Boyle, Manager, Tariff Analysis and Special Pro- 
grams, Port of Oakland, telephone conversation of July 26, 1985. 



Table 4. Port of San Francisco Total Cargo by Trade Route 



Trans-Pacific 49% 

Southeast Asia 17% 

Canada • 12% 

South/Central America 10% 

Australia/New Zealand 8% 

Europe 4% 



I 



Source: Port of San Francisco, 1984 Annual Report. ^ 

^ ^ . I 



35 



III. Setting 



Table 5. 1984 Port of San Francisco Revenue by Source 



Maritime: 35% 
Cargo handling, ship repair, passenger 
service, foreign trade zone 

Commerci al : 55% 
Restaurants, marinas, office and 
retail shops, parking 

Other: 10% 
Resale of electric power to tenants, 
interest, miscellaneous revenues 

Source: Port of San Francisco 1984 Annual Report and Dr. Randall Rossi, 
Planning, Environmental and Regulatory Consultant, Port of San Francisco, 
meeting of August 1, 1985. 



Table 6. Ten Largest Cargo-Handling* Billings, 
Port of San Francisco, 1983-1984 



Lykes Brothers Steamship Co., Inc. (North Terminal) 


$ 1,540,000 


Evergreen Marine Corp. (South Terminal) 


1,510,000 


National Galleon Shipping Corp. (South Terminal) 


860,000 


EAC Lines (Both Terminals) 


510,000 


Delta Steamship Lines, Inc. (South Terminal) 


420,000 


Columbus Line (South Terminal) 


400,000 


Wallenius Line (Pier 70; automobiles) 


260,000 


Norsk Pacific (Piers 15, 17, and 48; newsprint) 


260,000 


Holland American Line (Pier 35; passengers) 


250,000 


Flota Mercante Grancolombi ana, S.A. (South Terminal) 


210,000 


*Wharfage, dockage and demurrage. 





Sources: Port Commission of the City and County of San Francisco, Official 
Statement Relating to $42,500,000 Port Commission of San Francisco Revenue 
Bond, Series C, 1984, page 17, and Bendix Environmental Research, Inc. 



36 



Ill, Setting 



Table 7. Characteristics of SFCT Imports and Exports 







Imports 




Exports 


Termi na1 


Fi seal 
1984 % 
Con- 
tai ners 


Fi seal 
1985 % 
Con- 
tai ners 


% General 
Cargo 
Increase 
1984-1985 


Fi seal 
1984 % 
Con- 
tainers 


Fi seal 
1985 % 
Con- 
tai ners 


% General 
Cargo 
Increase 
1984-1985 


North 


65% 


75% 


42% 


85% 


93% 


44% 


South 


99% 


98% 


71% 


99% 


99% 


75% 



Source: Fiscal Year Revenue Tons, Port of San Francisco, July 1985, and 
Bendix Environmental Research, Inc. 



BACKGROUND NOTES: 

1. Pacific Merchants Shipping Association, "Maritime Industry, Pacific 
Region," 1982. 

2. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, San Francisco District, prepared by Recht 
Hausrath & Assoc. & Temple, Barker & Sloane, Inc., San Francisco Bay 
Area Cargo Forecast, 1981, cited in MTC/BCDC, San Francisco Bay Area 
Seaport Plan, Final Technical Report, 1982, p. 32. 

3. Port of San Francisco, 1983 Annual Report. 

4. San Francisco Chronicle, May 7 1985. 

5. Wharfside, magazine published by the Port of San Francisco, March/ 
April , 1985, p. 7. 



Existing Facilities and Use: North Terminal 



Existing SFCT-North facilities (Figure 5, page 13) are operated by Cali- 
fornia Stevedore & Ballast Company and handle break-bulk, Ro-Ro, combo and 
containerized cargo. These facilities accommodate deep-draft vessels (38 

37 



III. Setting 



foot depth at "'"MLLW, mean lower low water). Nedlloyd Lines signed a five 
year use agreement in 1984, marking its return to San Francisco, where its 
ships had called for 51 years from 1931 to 1982. 

The terminal operator uses port packers or similar equipment to handle con- 
tainers. In the future transtainers may also be used. Rail tracks provide 
direct access to the Terminal and can accommodate high, wide and heavy load 
movements. Three inbound truck queues enter the gate where containers are 
weighed and inspected for damage. Fuel for diesel equipment is provided by 
truck from off-site. Three sheds at the North Terminal provide covered 
storage for cargo; a fourth shed (Shed B) was demolished in 1984 to pro- 
vide space for container storage. 

The site of the North Terminal was originally filled in 1964-1965. Ground 
subsidence is an ongoing problem for cargo handling operations because of 
the nature of the fill and the unconsolidated Bay muds that underlie the 
site. Settlement has been 8 to 9 feet in the eastern portion of the site 
(see Figure 11, page 39). 

Existing Facilities and Use: Islais Creek Channel and Bridge 

Pursuant to BCDC Permit No. 36-71, January 1972, Islais Creek is dredged, 
as needed, to maintain a depth of 40 ft. below MLLW east of the Third 
Street Bridge and 32 ft. below MLLW west of the Third Street Bridge. 
Dredged material is disposed of off Alcatraz Island at a site authorized by 
the US Army Corps of Engineers. The permit made a finding that this dredging 
would not undermine the stability of adjacent fill.^ 

The existing Third Street bridge over Islais Creek has a clearance of 5 to 
11,5 feet, depending on the stage of the tide.^ Some boats are small enough 



III. Setting 



Figure 1 1 . Subsidence at the North 
Terminal 




Photo by Holton Associates 



to pass under the bridge. The bridge is lifted for ships to pass once or 
twice a month and a ship damages the bridge about once a year.-^ 

The following use is made of Islais Creek. One ship with coconut oil from 
the Phillipines used to go up Islais Creek every one or two months to the 
copra processing plant west of the Islais Creek Bridge; this plant closed 
June 29, 1985, because a drought in the Phillipines has affected the product 
shipped to the facility, and the plant may be sold to another owner. 3a 
TNT Marine has facilities on the south side of Islais Creek west of the 
Third Street Bridge. Boats go to their facilities about once a week.^ 
Westar Towboat Service tugboats assist ships at Pier 84 on the north side 
of Islais Creek, west of the Third Street Bridge, up to four times a month, ^ 
American Navigation pulls a ship out fi»om Pier 84 once a year at the most.^ 
Harbor Tug and Barge assists ships at Pier 84 several times a year. 7 The 
San Francisco Fire Department's fireboat .ties up on the south side of 

39 



III. Setting 



Islais Creek, east of the Third Street Bridge, during storms. ^ Islais 
Creek is not used by houseboats.^ 

# There is a small community of people with boats that uses the west end of 
Islais Creek. These include the fishing boats Erymione and the American 
(the latter in drydock, as of December 1985); the former fishing boat 
Expectation, which has not been out for several years, according to a local 
resident; a Monterey class boat planned to be rigged for fishing; an 
Owens class boat that has been used in the past for Bay sports fishing; 
the Pelican, sometimes used as a residence; the Able, a sailboat which 
used to be used for sailing lessons; a small boat used only for storage; 
and two rafts. At the time of field observation on December 15, 1985, 
cormorants were feeding on numerous small fish in the Creek. 



39a 



III. Setting 



Existing Facilities and Use: Sou th Terminal 

The South Terminal is operated by Stevedoring Services of America. Ever- 
green Line, the world's largest container shipping company in terms of con- 
tainer capacity, calls at SFCT-South on the average of once every three 
days with ships from Japan, Hong Kong, Taiwan and Korea. Average turn- 
around time is less than eight hours. The fastest container time at SFCT- 
South has been 44 contai ners/hour. ■'•'^ The three berths accommodate deep 
draft vessels (38-40 feet of water at MLLW) and there is direct rail ac- 
cess. Four electric cranes transfer containers between ships and the termi- 
nal . 

Other current Port tenants include a grain terminal operated by Continental 
Grain Co., the Baker Commodities tallow works. Tidewater Sand and Gravel, 
a fertilizer/fish meal warehouse, KSFO and a recycling center. The re- 
cycling center, the fertilizer warehouse and Tidewater Sand and Gravel are 
on 30-day (month-to-month) leases. 

Activity at the Grain Terminal varies from year to year, depending on the 
size of the harvest and the magnitude of overseas sales. An obsolete Con- 
tainer Freight Station was demolished in 1984 to provide additional con- 
tainer storage space. 

Less settlement has occurred at SFCT-South than at SFCT-North. 
Interm odal Container Transfer Facility 

Land-bridged cargo takes up to eight days less travel time from Pacific Rim 
ports to the East Coast than the all -water route through the Panama Canal 
and can make use of the economies of scale associated with vessels too 



40 



III. Setting 



large to pass through the Panama Canal. The costs of land transport are 
more than offset by the savings associated with time saved and the use of 
larger ships. 

In October 1983, the Port of San Francisco began operation of the first on- 
dock intermodal container transfer facility in California. This interim 
facility, which eliminates the need to transfer containers from ship to 
truck before loading the containers on trains, decreased the handling time 
and cost per container and contributed to the gain in container cargo for 
the year. The arrival/departure of trains at the ICTF is constrained by 
restrictions on all mainline train movements between San Jose and San 
Francisco during peak commuter hours. 

EXISTING FACILITIES NOTES: 

1. San Francisco Bay Conservation and Development Commission Permit No. 
36-71, §111.1. 

2. 11.5 ft. at MLLW and 5 ft. at +MHHW. 

3. David Conci , San Francisco Department of Public Works, telephone conver- 
sation of March 14, 1985. 

# 3a. Triumph Marketing, "Bay Belt Rail Service Study," November, 1985. 

4. Dick McKnight, TNT Marine, telephone conversation of July 12, 1985. 

5. Mary McMillan, Westar Towboat Service, telephone conversation of July 
12, 1985. 

6. Kelley Fallon, American Navigation, telephone conversation of July 12, 
1985. 

7. Brian Lodge, Harbor Tug & Barge, telephone conversation of July 12, 
1985. 

8. Lt. William Utikol , San Francisco Fire Department, conversation of Au- 
gust 2, 1985. 

9. BCDC, Staff Report: Houseboats and Live-aboard Boats, July 1985. 

# 9a. This description is based on a tour of the area with a local resident, 

John Porter, on December 15, 1985. 

41 



III. 

10. Wharfside, March/Apri.l , 1985, p. 

11. Dr. Randall Rossi, Port of San 



Setting 
9. 

Francisco, meeting of August 1, 



41a 



III. Setting 



Pier 98 Biology 

Pier 98 consists of a finger of fill extending eastward into San Francisco 
Bay (see Figure 12, page 43). The north edge consists of a rocky interti- 
dal area of rip-rap, and the south side of the fill consists of bay mud 
which has been pushed up by the weight of the fill. The upland fill por- 
tion of the site supports ruderal (living in waste places near habitation) 
plants, including some native plants such as Coyote Brush ( Baccharis ) and 
toyon ( Heteromeles arbutifolia) , and has low wildlife value according to 
the biological field consultant.^ 

The upper elevations of the uplifted area on the south side support typical 
Bay salt marsh habitat, consisting of Pickle Weed ( Salicornia ) and asso- 
ciated plant species, in fairly poor condition.^ The lower elevations are a 
tidal mudflat habitat used by shorebirds, gulls and terns for roosting and 
foraging. Mudflats are an intertidal habitat with many bottom-dwelling 
organisms of value as a food source for birds, particularly those wintering 
in the Bay. Such mudflats are the most intensively used wildlife habitat 
type in the Bay. Because San Francisco Bay tidal mudflats are the single 
most important habitat for migrating shorebirds in California, and since 
they have historically been drastically reduced in extent due to land con- 
version, such existing areas are considered valuable by biologists. Few 
mudflats or marsh areas remain along San Francisco's shoreline. 

Salicornia marsh in the Bay is associated with a number of endangered or 
threatened wildlife species; it is unlikely, however, that the small and 
somewhat poor-condition Sal icornia marsh on the site currently supports any 
of these species. None of these were sighted during site inspection on July 
9, 1985, by Steve Granholm of Holton Associates, biological consultant, nor 

42 



III. Setting 



Figure 12. Pier 98: View to the East from 
Land End of Spit 




Photo by Holton Associates 



are there records of the presence of these species on this site. 

The only federal- or state-listed threatened or endangered species that are 
probable in the project area are California Brown Pelicans ( Pelecanus occi- 
dental is cal ifornicus ) and California Least Terns ( Sterna antillarum 
browni ). Both are on the federal and state endangered lists. 

Brown Pelicans were seen just offshore from Pier 98 during the field study 
for this EIR and presunably frequent the area from June through February. 
They probably forage in open water bordering the project area and may perch 
on piers. They do not breed in Northern California. 

Least Terns nest in other portions of S^n Francisco Bay, but the closest 
known site is in Alameda, well out of foraging range from the project area.^ 
It is possible that migrants forage in the project area. 

43 



III. Setting 



Although $a1 Icornia marsh is present, neither California Clapper Rails 

( Rallus longerostris obsoletus ) or Salt Marsh Harvest Mice ( Reithrodontomys 

ravi ventri s ) are thought to be present, as they are not known to live in or 
near San Francisco. ^ 

The rocky intertidal habitat along the north side and the eastern end of 
Pier 98 provide attachment for invertebrates such as barnacles, rock snails, 
mussels, limpets and shore crabs. 



PIER 98 BIOLOGY NOTE: 

1. Holton Associates, Report of July 17, 1985, available for public review 
in the project file at the Office of Environmental Review, Department 
of City Planning, 450 McAllister St. 



Transpo rtation 

The cargo delivered to and from the terminals (about 960,000 tons at pres- 
ent) is transported mainly by trucks, although the South Terminal has rail 
service. SFCT employees generally drive to work. There are 65 permanent 
workers at SFCT-North and 40 at SFCT-South. When ships are being loaded 
and unloaded an additional 100 to 150 people may work at the terminals; 
often 50 at SFCT-North and 60 at SFCT-South. Transit use is minimal.^ 
The operator of the North Terminal has an arrangement whereby a van picks 
up ten riders arriving at BART in the Downtown area and delivers them to 
and from the Terminal. 

Along Amador Street, within the South Terminal, there are facilities that 
generate traffic, including the Grain Terminal, a sand and gravel company, 
a recycling plant, a fertilizer transfer facility, a tallow works and a 
radio transmission tower (station KSFO). The results of a traffic count on 

44 



III. Setting 



Amador Street on June 28, 1985, when there was a grain ship taking on cargo 
at the Grain terminal, are shown in Table 8, page 46. 

Three transit lines serve the SFCT area: the Nos. 15, 19 and 44 lines. 
The No. 44 line terminates at Evans Avenue and Keith Street near the South 
Terminal, the No. 15 line continues up and down Third Street, and the No. 
19 line goes to the Hunters Point Shipyard between 7 AM and 7 PM and to 
Hawes Street and Innes Avenue after 7 PM. When peak hour hand counts were 
taken by the Traffic Consultant on various days in June and July 1985, none 
of the buses observed in this area appeared to be crowded.^ 

There is a designated, but not signed, bicycle route running along Third 
Street. On July 1, 1985, the Traffic Consultant observed two bicycles 
between 7:30 and 8:30 AM and two between 4 and 5 PM. 

There are sidewalks on the main streets of the area except for Army Street 
east of Third Street. Pedestrian traffic is light, especially in the South 
Terminal area. 

Traffic generated in the SFCT area must approach from and leave to the west. 
Following this, most traffic, except for the small amount from San Fran- 
cisco's Mission, Twin Peaks and Sunset areas, must connect with north/south 
streets and highways to take them to their ultimate destinations. The 
east/west roadways thus serve mainly as collectors for the north/south 
facilities, see Table 9, page 46 and Figure 13, page 47. 

There is no direct connection from Evans Avenue to the southbound freeways. 
'# This will probably change in the future with the construction of 1-280 
ramps on Evans Avenue, near Islais Creek. These ramps were included 

in the CalTrans State Transportation Improvement Program five year program 

(text continues on page 48 after figures) 
45 



III. Setting 





Table 8. Traffic Volumes on 


Amador Street^ 






Westbound 


Eastbound 




AUtOS 1 PUCKS 


Autos 


Trucks 


8:00-9:00 AM 


5 9 


14 


11 


4:00-5:00 PM 


24 


12 


6 


1, Counts made 


on Friday, June 28, 1985. 







Source: William Marconi, P.E., traffic engineer. 



Table 9. Road Facilities Serving Piers 



Traffic Engineer's 

Road Classification Traffic Lanes ADT^ 

East /West Facilities 

Army Street Arterial 4 13,7002 

Evans Avenue Arterial 4 15,000^ 

Cargo Way Collector 4 7,100^ 

North/South Facilities 

Third Street Arterial 4-6 15,300 - 24,700^ 

1-280 Freeway 6 55,000^ 

U.S. 101 Freeway 8 211, 000^ 

1. ADT = average daily trips. 

2. Traffic counts made by the Department of Public Works, Traffic Engi- 
neering Division in June and July of 1985. 

3. CalTrans, "1981 Traffic Volumes on California State Highways," 1981. 
Source: William Marconi, P.E., traffic engineer. 



46 



III. Setting 




47 



Ill, Setting 



in July 1985 as project 601A 280. The present route from the South Terminal 
for those wishing to go south would be to proceed north on Third Street to 
25th Street, west to Pennsylvania Avenue, and then south onto the southbound 
1-280 on-ramp. Vehicles approaching the terminal from the south leave 
1-280 at Army Street, proceed east on Army Street to Third Street and then 
south to their destination. 

Northbound vehicles going to the East Bay can either use Third Street direct- 
ly, 1-280 for part of their route, or proceed to U.S. 101 and head north. 
Those going to the downtown San Francisco area and points north can use 
similar routes. 

Left turns are prohibited from northbound Third Street into Army Street. 
Left turns from southbound 1-280 to the east on Army Street are now precluded 
by channelization. This may be changed in the near future. ^ Right turns are 
also prohibited on the red signal from Cargo Way onto northbound Third 
Street. 

As a result of a desire on the part of the community living in the Bay View 
district to minimize truck traffic on Third Street south of Evans Avenue, 
the Board of Supervisors passed an ordinance limiting truck use of Third 
Street between Jamestown Avenue and Jerrold Avenue. ^ 

Other characteristics of the existing transportation pattern are discussed 
in the Impacts Chapter (Transportation Impacts section) to facilitate analy- 
sis of potential transportation impacts. 

TRANSPORTATION NOTES: 

1. William Marconi, P.E., Traffic Consultant, Report of July 27, 1985, as 
revised September 29, 1985, available for public review in the project 
file at the Department of City Planning, 450 McAllister Street. 



48 



III. Setting 



2. Ordinance 500-74, 1979. 



Air Quality 

The Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD) operates a regional 
monitoring network which measures the ambient concentrations of six air 
pollutants: ozone (O3), carbon monoxide (CO), total suspended particulates 
(TSP), lead (Pb), nitrogen dioxide (NO2), and sulfur dioxide (SO2). On the 
basis of the monitoring data, the Bay Area, including San Francisco, cur- 
rently is designated a non-attainment area with respect to the federal O3 
and CO standards. A three-year summary of the data collected at the BAAQMD 
monitoring station nearest the project site (about 0.35 miles northnorth- 
west at 900 23rd Street) is shown in Appendix C, p. A-39), together with 
the corresponding federal and/or state ambient air quality standards. In 
1984, there was one violation of the federal and state one-hour average 
ozone standards, one violation of the federal and state eight-hour CO stan- 
dard and five violations of the previous state 24-hour average TSP stan- 
dard; in 1983, there were one violation of the federal and state one-hour 
average ozone standards and four violations of the previous state 24-hour 
average TSP standard; and in 1982 there were one violation of the federal 
and state eight-hour CO standard, and three violations of the state 24-hour 
average TSP standard. 1 

BAAQMD has conducted two CO "hotspot" monitoring programs in the Bay Area, 
including San Francisco. One CO monitoring program was conducted during 
the winter of 1979-80 and included the Intersection of Washington and Bat- 
tery Streets in San Francisco, about 3.2 miles north of the site. 2 The high 



49 



III. Setting 

eight-hour average concentration was 10.1 ppm, which violates the 9-ppm 
state and federal standards by 1.1 ppm. The high one-hour average concen- 
tration of 15 ppm does not violate the 20-ppm state standard or the 35-ppm 
federal standard. Another CO monitoring program was conducted during the 
winter of 1980-81 and included the San Francisco intersections of Geary and 
Taylor Streets, about 2.9 miles northnorthwest of the site, and 100 Harrison 
Street at Spear, about 2.5 miles north of the site.^ At Geary and Taylor 
the observed high eight-hour average concentration was 11.5 ppm, which vio- 
lates the standards by 2.5 ppm, and the high one-hour concentration was 15 
ppm, which does not violate standards. At 100 Harrison Street the observed 
high eight-hour and one-hour average concentrations were 7.8 ppm and 13 
ppm, respectively, which do not violate standards. These data indicate 
that locations in San Francisco near streets with high traffic volumes and 
congested flows may experience violations of the eight-hour CO standard 
under adverse meteorological conditions. 

Comparison of these data with those from other BAAQMD monitoring stations 
indicates that San Francisco's air quality is among the least degraded of 
all the developed portions of the Bay Area. Two of the three prevailing 
winds, westerly and northwesterly, blow off the Pacific Ocean and reduce 
the potential for San Francisco to receive pollutants from elsewhere in the 
region. 

San Francisco's air quality problems, primarily CO and TSP, are due largely 
to pollutant emissions from within the City. CO is a non-reactive pollutant 
with the one major source category being motor vehicles. CO concentrations 
are generally highest during periods of peak traffic congestion. TSP levels 
are relatively low near the coast, increase with distance inland, and peak 



III. Setting 



in dry, sheltered valleys. The primary sources of TSP in San Francisco are 
demolition and construction activities and motor vehicle travel over paved 
roads. 

San Francisco contributes to air quality problems, primarily O3, a regional 
problem, in other parts of the Bay Area. O3 is not emitted directly, but 
is produced in the atmopshere over time and distance through a complex 
series of photochemical reactions involving hydrocarbon (HC) and nitrogen 
oxide (NOx) emissions, which are carried down-wind as the photochemical 
reaction occurs. Ozone standards are exceeded most often in the Santa 
Clara, Livermore, and Diablo Valleys, because local topography and meteoro- 
logical conditions favor the buildup of O3 and its precursors there. 

In 1982, emissions from motor vehicles were the source of 86% of the CO, 
46% of the HC, 44% of the TSP, and 56% of the NOx San Francisco, while 
power plant fuel combustion was the largest single source of sulfur oxides 
(SOj^), about 33% of the total. ^ These percentages are expected to apply 
reasonably well to current conditions. 

In response to the Bay Area's O3 and CO nonattai nment designations, the 
Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG), BAAQMD, and the Metropolitan 
Transportation Commission (MTC) prepared and adopted the 1982 Bay Area Air 
Quality Plan, which establishes pollution control strategies to attain fed- 
eral ozone and CO standards by 1987 as required by federal law. 5 These 
strategies, based on detailed subregional emission inventories and projec- 
tions and on mathematical models of pollutant behavior, consist of station- 
ary and mobile source emission controls, and transportation improvements. 
The BAAQMD, MTC and California Bureau of Automotive Repair (a state agency) 
have primary responsibility for implementation of these strategies. 



51 



III. Setting 



AIR NOTES: 

1. State standards for particulate matter changed in 1983 to concentrate 
on fine particulate matter which has been demonstrated to have health 
implications when inhaled. Concentrations standards also changed. 
There is not yet an adopted method for monitoring fine particulate 
matter. Until the State adopts a method, it is not possible to deter- 
mine what proportion of TSP in San Francisco would be subject to review 
against the new standards. 

2. Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG), AQMP Tech Memo 33, Summary 
of 1979/1980 Hotspot Monitoring Program, Berkeley, California, June 
1980. 

3. ABAG, AQMP Tech Memo 40, Results of the 1980/1981 Hotspot monitoring 
Program for Carbon Monoxide, Berkeley, California, January 1982. 

4. Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD), Base Year 1982 Emis- 
sions Inventory, Summary Report, San Francisco, California, November 1, 
1982. 

5. ABAG, BAAQMD and MTC, 1982 Bay Area Air Quality Plan, Berkeley, Cali- 
fornia, December 1982. 



Plans and Policies Relevant to the Proposed Project 
The Bay Plan and Special Area Plan No. 1, BCDC 

The relationship between the proposed project and policies of the Bay Plan 
is shown in Table 10, pages 54 to 59. The 1979 amendments to the 1969 Bay 
Plan showed no land use designation on either side of Islais Creek (Plan 
Map 10). In the 1983 amendments. Plan Map 10 shows the southern waterfront 
area, including the SFCT area, as a "port priority use area." Policies of 
the Special Area Plan No. 1, San Francisco Waterfront, relevant to the 
proposed project are also given in Table 10. 



The Seaport Plan 

MTC and BCDC, assisted by a seventeen-member Seaport Planning Advisory 

Committee (representing government, ports, developers and environmental 

groups), completed eight years of work on a Bay Area Seaport Plan in 1982. 



52 



III. Setting 



The Seaport Plan was intended to resolve potential conflicts between port 
development and environmental quality arising from port-related Bay fill, 
dredging, etc. The Plan predicted that the majority of regional cargo 
growth in waterborne commerce would be in containerized cargo. The rela- 
tionship of the project to Seaport Plan policies is given in Table 11, 
pages 59 to 62. 

The Seaport Committee gave ratings to two San Francisco transportation 
actions judged to be of regional concern: a high priority rating^ to: 
"2. Improve geometries of rail access to Piers 94/96," and a medium prior- 
ity rating! to: "1. Monitor land use development and traffic growth in 
area surrounding Piers 94/96 [South Terminal]; undertake study as neces- 
sary." 

Land use in the southeastern portion of San Francisco is the subject of 
ongoing study by the San Francisco Department of City Planning. Traffic 
conditions in the SFCT area have been the subject of study in connection 
with this EIR and form the basis for the Transportation Impacts analysis on 
pages 67 to 94. The ICTF is designed to improve rail access to the 
South Terminal and, via the i ntertermi nal bridge, to the North Terminal 
al so. 

The Peninsula Mass Transit Study^ considered a number of alternatives 
which would affect the peninsula rail lines serving the ICTF and all of San 
Franicisco. This study found that expensive grade separations for rail and 
local commuter auto traffic would need to be considered for all alterna- 
tives, but particularly for those that would "significantly increase the 
number of trains above current levels provided on the Peninsula." Half of 

(text continues on page 63 after tables) 

53 



III. Setting 



Table 10. Relationship of SFCT Project to Policies of the Bay Plan 

and Special Area Plan No. 1 



BAY PLAN 



FISH AND WILDLIFE 



Policy 1. "The benefits of fish and 
wildlife in the Bay should be 
insured for present and future gene- 
rations of Cali fornians. Therefore, 
to the greatest extent feasible, the 
remaining marshes and mudflats 
around the Bay, the remaining water 
volume and surface area of the Bay, 
and adequate fresh water inflow into 
the Bay should be maintained." 



The project addresses this Policy 
through preservation of the marsh 
and mudflat south of Pier 98 (note 
that this is the consequence of 
human action) and through the remo- 
val of existing fill on the south 
side of Islais Creek. The Phase I 
new bridge over Islais Creek would 
involve 0.5-1.1 acres of Bay fill 
which would be offset by existing 
Port fill credits. (Under the law 
anything which covers the surface of 
the water is considered fill.) The 
project would not affect fresh water 
inflow to the Bay. 



WATER POLLUTION 



Policy 1. "To the greatest extent 
feasible, the remaining marshes and 
mudflats around the Bay, the re- 
maining water volume and surface 
area of the Bay, and fresh water 
inflow into the Bay should be main- 
tained." 



See above. 



WATER SURFACE AREA AND VOLUME 



Policy 1. "The surface area of the 
Bay and the total volume of water 
should be kept as large as possible 
in order to maximize active oxygen 
interchange, vigorous circulation, 
and effective tidal action. Fil- 
ling and diking that reduce surface 
area and water volume should there- 
fore be allowed only for purposes of 
providing substantial public bene- 
fits and only if there is no rea- 
sonable alternative." 



The project would increase the sur- 
face area of the Bay exposed to air. 
Phase I would involve addition of the 
minimal area required for the inter- 
terminal bridge. Phase II would 
involve removal of fill in Islais 
Creek. 



(continued on next page) 



54 



III. Setting 



Table 10. Relationship of SFCT Project to Policies of the Bay Plan, Cont. 



Policy 2. "Water circulation in the 
Bay should be maintained, and im- 
proved as much as possible. Any 
proposed fill, dikes, or piers 
should be thoroughly evaluated to 
determine their effects upon water 
circulation and then modified as 
necessary to improve circulation or 
at least to minimize any harmful ef- 
fects." 



If the pilings for the i ntertermi nal 
bridge would be in Islais Creek, 
they would be designed to minimize 
effects on water circulation in the 
Islais Creek channel, see p. 129. 



MARSHES AND MUDFLATS 

Policy 3. "To offset possible addi- 
tional losses of marshes due to 
necessary filling and to augment the 
present marshes, (a) former marshes 
should be restored when possible 
through removal of existing dikes, 
(b) in areas selected on the basis 
of competent ecological study, some 
new marshes should be created 
through carefully placed lifts of 
dredged spoils, and (c) the quality 
of existing marshes should be im- 
proved by appropriate measures 
whenever possible." 



This Policy suggests that marshes 

resulting from human activity, such 

as the Pier 98 marsh may address Bay 
Plan objectives. 



PORTS 



Policy 2. "Some filling and dredging 
will be required to provide for ne- 
cessary port expansion, but any per- 
mitted fill or dredging should be in 
accord with the Seaport Plan." 



The interterminal bridge, 0.5 to 1.1 
acres of fill, is an integral part of 
the terminal development foreseen in 
the Seaport Plan, as indicated in 
Table 11, page 60. Filling and 
dredging would be in accord with the 
Seaport Plan, as indicated on pages 
60-61. 



Policy 3. "Port priority use areas 
should be protected for marine ter- 
minals and directly-related ancillary 
activities such as container freight 
stations, transit sheds and other 
temporary storage, ship repairing. 



The project would provide port faci- 
lities including -related warehousing 
and other temporary storage, support 
^transportation uses (trucking and 
rail), and customs facilities. Pub- 
lic access to the open space at Pier 



(continued on next page) 



55 



III. Setting 



Table 10. Relationship of SFCT Project to Policies of the Bay Plan, Cont. 



support transportation uses includ- 
ing trucking and railroad yards, 
freight forwarders, government of- 
fices related to the port activity, 
chandlers and marine services. 
Other uses, especially public ac- 
cess and public and commercial re- 
creational development, should also 
be permissible uses provided they do 
not significantly impair the effi- 
cient utilization of the port area." 

RECREATION . 



98 would not interfere with the ef- 
ficient operation of the SFCT. 



Policy 7. "In addition to the major 
recreational facilities indicated on 
the Plan maps, public access should 
be included wherever feasible in any 
shoreline development, as described 
in the policies for Public Access to 
the Bay [see below]. . .especially in 
urban areas. . 



Pier 98 would provide public access 
to the Bay in an urban area. Access 
through the working piers is not 
feasible because of the hazards of 
moving container-handling equipment, 
customs restrictions, and security. 



PUBLIC ACCESS 



Policy 1. "In addition to the pub- 
lic access to the Bay provided by 
waterfront parks, beaches, marinas, 
and fishing piers, maximum feasible 
access to and along the waterfront 
should be provided in and through 
every new development in the Bay or 
on the shoreline, whether it be for 
housing, industry, port, airport, 
public facility, or other use, ex- 
cept in cases where public access 
is clearly inconsistent with the 
project because of public safety 
considerations or significant use 
conflicts. In these cases, access 
at other locations, preferably 
near the project, should be provi- 
ded whenever feasible." 



Public access through the SFCT would 
be unsafe due to heavy vehicular 
traffic through the facility. Pub- 
lic access to the Bay would be pro- 
vided adjacent to the SFCT at Pier 
98. BCDC would have to determine 
that maximum feasible public access 
was provided in the project. 



(continued on next page) 

56 



III. Setting 



Table 10. Relationship of SFCT Project to Policies of the Bay Plan, Cont. 



Policy 4. "Public access improve- 
ments provided as a condition of 
any approval should be consistent 
with the project and the physical 
environment, including protection 
of natural resources, and provide 
for the public's safety and conve- 
nience. The improvements should 
be designed and built to encourage 
diverse Bay-related activities and 
movement to and along the shore- 
line, should permit barrier-free 
access for the physically handi- 
capped to the maximum feasible ex- 
tent, should include an ongi ng 
maintenance program, and should be 
identified with appropriate signs.' 

Policy 6. "Access to the water- 
front should be provided by walk- 
ways, trails, or other appropriate 
means and connect to the nearest 
public thoroughfare where conve- 
nient parking or public tran'spor- 
tation may be available." 

Policy 7. Roads near the edge of 
the water should be designed as 
scenic parkways for slow-moving 
traffic. The roadway and right- 
of-way design should maintain and 
enhance visual access for the tra- 
veler, discourage through traffic, 
and provide for safe, separated, 
and improved physical access to 
and along the shore. Public 
transit use and connections to 
the shoreline should be encour- 
aged where appropriate." 

APPEARANCE, DESIGN AND VIEWS 

Policy 5. "To enhance the mari- 
time atmosphere of the Bay Area, 
ports should be designed, whenever 
feasible, to permit public access 



The Pier 98 facility would be de- 
signed to minimize biological im- 
pacts, to provide wheelchair ac- 
cess, to include a maintenance pro- 
gram and appropriate signage, see 
Mitigation Chapter, p. 130. 



The Muni No. 44 line runs one block 
from Pier 98 and the No. 19 line 
runs two blocks from it. These 
lines run on the weekend as well as 
weekdays. A small parking area 
would be provided. 



The nature of the access to Pier 98 
would not make it conducive to use 
by through traffic. Bus lines are 
nearby, see Policy 6 discussion. 
Some free, off-street parking would 
be provided for the public. 



Activities at the South Terminal 
would be visible from Pier 98. The 
removal of Shed C from the North 
Terminal would make activity at 



(continued on next page) 



57 



III. Setting 



Table 10. Relationship of SFCT Project to Policies of the Bay Plan, Cont. 



and viewing of port activities by 
means of (a) view points (e.g. 
piers, platforms, or towers), res- 
taurants, etc., that would not 
interfere with port operations, 
and (b) openings between buildings 
and other site designs that permit 
views from nearby roads." 



that Terminal more open and visible 
from Potrero Hi 1 1 . 



DREDGING 



# Policy 1. "To prevent sedimenta- 
tion resulting from dredging pro- 
jects, mud from future dredging 
should be disposed of in one of the 
following ways...(d) if no other 
alternative is feasible, dumping in 
designated parts of the Bay where 
the maximum possible amount will be 
carried out the Golden Gate on the 
ebb tides; areas should be desig- 
nated for this purpose upon appro- 
val by both the Commission and the 
Army Corps of Engineers." 



Dredge spoils would be deposited 
at a site approved by the Army 
Corps of Engineers and BCDC. BCDC 
would make a determination that 
the proposed spoils disposal site 
was consistent with Bay Plan poli- 
cies on dredging as part of is- 
suance of the required dredge dis- 
posal permit. 



SAFETY OF FILLS 



# Policy 1. "The Commission has ap- 
pointed the Engineering Criteria 
Review Board consisting of geolo- 
gists, civil engineers specializing 
in soils engineering, structural 
engineers, and architects competent 
to and empowered to (a) establish 
and revise safety criteria for Bay 
fills and structures thereon, (b) 
review all except minor projects 
for the adequacy of their specific 
safety provisions, and make recom- 
mendations concerning these provi- 
sions.. ." 



The project could be subject to re- 
view by BCDC's Engineering Criteria 
Review Board. Any recommendations 
the Board may make concerning the 
safety of fills must be addressed by 
the Port before permits are granted 
for the project. Need for Board Re- 
view would be determined during the 
BCDC permitting process. 



(continued on the next page) 



58 



III. Setting 



Table 10. Relationship of SFCT Project to Policies of the Bay Plan, Cont, 



Policy 2. "Even if the Bay plan 
indicates that a fill may be per- 
missible, no fill or building 
should be constructed if hazards 
cannot be overcome adequately for 
the intended use in accordance with 
the criteria prescribed by the En- 
gineering Criteria Review Board." 



The facilities would be designed to 
be safe whether or not referred to 
the Engineering Criteria Review 
Board, because the Port of San Fran- 
cisco has no desire to incur the 
legal liability that would be asso- 
ciated with an inadequately designed 
facility. 



GENERAL POLICIES 



SPECIAL AREA PLAN NO. 1 



Policy 5. "Fill for Maritime Faci- 
lities. Any filling or dredging for 
maritime purposes should be consis- 
tent with the McAteer-Petri s Act, 
the Bay Plan, and the Seaport Plan." 

Policy 6. "Required Public Access, 
"...maximum feasible public access 
should be provided in conjunction 
with any development of existing or 
replacement piers. Public access 
should be located at ground or plat- 
form 1 evel . . .Publ ic access should be 
open to the sky. . ." 



Fill removal and dredging would be 
consistent with relevant provisions 
of the McAteer-Petris Act, the Bay 
Plan, and the Seaport Plan. 



The public access portion of the 
project would be at ground level 
and open to the sky. Public access 
through the piers could not be pro- 
vided safely. BCDC would determine 
whether the maximum feasible public 
access was included in the project. 



(continued on the next page) 



58a 



III. Setting 



Table 10. Relationship of SFCT Project to Policies of the Bay Plan, Cont. 



GENERAL RECOMMENDATIONS 



Recommendation 1. "The existing 
height and bulk limits (as of April, 
1975) of the City of San Francisco 
should not be exceeded on any water- 
front development," 



The SFCT buildings would comply 
with the San Francisco height and 
bulk limits. 



ISLAIS CREEK WEST OF THIRD STREET 



Policy 1. "The south side of Islais 
Creek Channel west of the Third 
Street Bridge should be developed 
for public access and waterfront 
recreation as a public esplanade 
and viewing area," 



The project would not affect devel- 
opment of this portion of the Islais 
Creek bank for public access and 
recreation. 



INDIA BASIN 



Policy 1. "The India Basin area 
should be developed as a major 
waterfront park in accordance with 
the Recreation and Open Space Plan 
of the City of San Francisco. 
Some fill may be needed." 

Policy 3. "Continuous public ac- 
cess should be provided along the 
west side of future Pier 98, along 
India Basin, and a public access 
connection should be provided 
between the two." 



The proposed Pier 98 spit public 
access area, on the north side of 
India Basin, would provide more open 
^pace than proposed for the area in 
the Open Space Plan of the City of 
San Francisco. 

Continuous public access would be 
provided along both sides of the 
existing Pier 98 spit and the open 
space could connect to other, future 
India Basin open space developments. 



Sources: BCOC, San Francisco Bay Plan, as amended September 1983, BCDC, 
Special Area Plan No. 1: San Francisco Waterfront, April 1975, as amended 
through April 1985, and Bendix Environmental Research, Inc. 



I 

i 

I 



59 



1 



III. Setting 



Table 11. Relationship of the SFCT Project to the Seaport Plan 



MARINE TERMINAL POLICIES 

Policy 1. "Major marine terminal 
developments are significant addi- 
tions to capacity or developments 
involving more than a small amount 
of Bay fill. The need for a major 
development shall be demonstrated 
in one of the following ways: 

"The development of new container 
terminal berths shall be consistent 
with the baseline demand estimates 
in Table 3 using a lead time of six 
years measured from the filing of a 
BCDC permit application. Demand 
estimates for the years not shown on 
Table 3 shall be computed by 
straight-line interpolation." 

"Major marine terminal development 
shall occur at those sites classi- 
fied as near-term and active by 
this Plan..." 



Policy 2. "Minor marine terminal 
developments are projects other 
than major developments. Minor 
# developments, such as rehabilita- 
tion of existing facilities, shall 
not be subjected to a determination 
of need nor be confined to the 
active or near-term sites..." 



Policy 3. "Bay fill authorized for 
development of any marine terminal 
must be the minimum necessary to 
achieve an adequate terminal at the 
site and must minimize harmful ef- 



The Phase I expansion of North Ter- 
minal facilities would constitute a 
development of existing terminals 
included in the existing tabulation 
in Seaport Plan Table 3. 



Phase II would involve conversion 
of a break-bulk berth to a con- 
tainer berth and creation of a new 
container berth. The new berth 
would be within the container termi- 
nal development projected by Seaport 
Plan Table 3. 



The North Terminal berths are clas- 
sified as active. One of the Phase 
1 II Islais Creek berths is classified 
as active and the other is classed 
for near-term development. Both 
North and South Terminals are in 
Port Priority Use Areas. 

BCDC would determine whether Phase I 
North Terminal modernization of 
existing facilities was a major or a 
minor terminal development. One of 
the Phase II berths is expected to be 
a minor development (a formal deter- 
mination would be made by BCDC and MTC 
based on the advice of the Seaport 
Planning Committee) and the other 
would be a major development subject 
to a determination of need. 

The interterminal bridge over Islais 
Creek would involve the minimal fill 
required for the purpose. The bridge 
would require a fill permit. This 
bridge would result in efficient 



(continued on next page) 



60 



III. Setting 



Table 11. Relationship of the SFCT Project to the Seaport Plan 

fects to the Bay Area, as provided operation of the SFCT and minimiza- 
McAteer-Petri s Act. tion of environmental impacts of 



(continued on next page) 



60a 



III. Setting 



Table 11. Relationship of the SFCT Project to the Seaport Plan, Cont. 



Policy 5. "The port priority use 
areas identified in the Maps section 
of this Plan shall be protected for 
marine terminals and directly- 
related ancillary acti viti es. . .With- 
in these areas, the shoreline lands 
classified as active, near-term, and 
long-term by this Plan shall be re- 
stricted to marine terminal use. 
Interim uses shall be permissible 
but must be readily displaceable 
when the area is needed for marine 
terminals or directly-related ancil- 
lary activities..." 

Policy 6. "To avoid unnecessary Bay 
fill and other adverse environmental 
effects, and to encourage prompt con- 
struction and full use of authorized 
faci 1 i ti es. . , 



SFCT operation. Phase II would in- 
volve removal of 0.89 acres of fill 
The status of existing Pier 98 fill 
would be determined by BCDC. 

The North and South Terminal develop- 
ments and the i ntertermi nal bridge 
are all marine terminal developments 
or directly related to marine termi- 
nals. The Pier 98 public access area 
is designated as a long-term develop- 
ment site. The Port would request 
BCDC and MTC to amend the Seaport 
Plan to delete the marine terminal 
designation of Pier 98. 



"All permits for marine terminals 
shall contain a schedule that esta- 
blishes (a) a date prior to the com- 
mencement of construction by which 
the project sponsor must demonstrate 
the ability to finance the project; 
and (b) a reasonable timetable for 
project construction, including spe- 
cific milestones..." 



Policy 9. "To use existing terminals 
fully and to lessen the cost and ad- 
verse environmental effects associa- 
ted with development to meet the 
growth of waterborne cargoes:... 

"local governments should adopt and 
implement land use policies that 



Financing for most of Phase I de- 
velopment would be provided by the 
bonds approved by San Francisco 
voters in November 1984. The Port's 
application for BCDC permits would 
include a schedule for Phase I 
with milestones and general infor- 
mation about Phase II which can- 
not be scheduled in detail at this 
time. 



The project would be predominantly 
on existing land. 



(continued on next page) 



61 



III. Setting 



Table 11. Relationship of the SFCT Project to the Seaport Plan, Cont. 



facilitate terminal development 
on existing dry land; and" 

"terminal operators should, where 
economically feasible, increase 
terminal productivity." 

GROUND TRANSPORTATION POLICIES 

Policy 13. "The Bay Area ports, 
local governments and marine ter- 
minal operators should take steps 
to make the best possible use of 
existing ground transportation 
facilities and shall employ mea- 
sures to mitigate any significant 
adverse environmental effects of 
increased traffic from existing 
and proposed marine terminal faci- 
lities. If mitigation of traffic 
problems at marine terminal faci- 
lities is being considered as part 
of the environmental review pro- 
cess, the local government or port 
whichever has the principal res- 
ponsibility for carrying out or 
approving the project shall make 
a realistic estimate of the avail- 
able resources to fund such miti- 
gation and the likelihood that 
such measures can be implemented." 

Policy 14. "Local and regional 
transportation planning and 
funding priorities shall facili- 
tate the ef ficient movement of 
goods by rail and truck to and 
from the Bay Area ports. 



The proposed project would increase 
the productivity of the existing 
SFCT. 



The ICTF would improve use of exist- 
ing rail facilities. Traffic miti- 
gation measures included in the pro- 
posed project are discussed in the 
Mitigation Measures Chapter, pp. 122 
to 126. 



The ICTF would facilitate efficient 
rail movement of goods to and from 
the SFCT. 



Sources: MTC/BCDC, "The San Francisco Bay Area Seaport Plan," 1982, and 
Bendix Environmental Research, Inc. 



62 



III. Setting 



the eight alternatives evaluated assumed the dedication of a third track 
for bidirectional freight traffic. A third track would require the modifi- 
cation of at least three existing tunnels and 20-25 existing bridges, a new 
signal system, and modifications to the existing trackway, drainage and 
sidings, at a cost of $340-360 million. It was the report authors' conclu- 
sion that "it would be more desirable for the transit operating entity to 
take over the freight service from SP and contract with a short-line opera- 
tor to perform freight operation over the transit tracks, rather than pro- 
vide a separate third track for SP freight only." 

ICTF operation would increase train use of the peninsula rail route prima- 
rily during non-commuter peak hours and therefore would not have a signifi- 
cant impact on the movement of commuters by any transportation mode. 



PLAN NOTES: 

1. Medium and high priority out of three categories, "desirable," "more 
desirable," and "most desirable." 

2. Kaiser Engineers (California) Corporation and Barton-Aschman Associates, 
Inc., for MTC, 1985. 



63 



IV. Impacts 



CHAPTER IV. IMPACTS 



IMPACTS DETERMINED TO BE INSIGNIFICANT 

Some environmental effects would either be insignificant or would be miti- 
gated through measures incorporated into the project design. These require 
no further environmental analysis and will not be addressed in the EIR. 
These effects are described briefly below. For additional information see 
the Initial Study, Appendix A, page A-1. 

San Francisco Master Plan : The project would comply with Master Plan objec- 
tives and policies regarding realization of San Francisco's maritime poten- 
tial, improvment of the efficiency of cargo handling facilities, intensifi- 
cation of maritime uses, development of container facilities, provision of 
shoreline public access and maritime viewing areas, and modernization of 
Pier 80. 

Chemical Hazards : The project would not be affected by hazardous land uses. 
An evacuation and emergency response plan would be developed by the project 
sponsor as part of the project. No change in the proportion of hazardous 
cargo handled is expected. New underground fuel tanks would conform to 
California Sher Act safety requirements and to Environmental Protection 
Agency regulations to be promulgated under the 1984 amendments to the 
Resource Conservation and Recovery Act. 

Cultural Impacts : The project site rests entirely on Bay fill. Most of the 
fill has been placed since 1960. The probability of encountering cultural 



64 



IV. Impacts 



resources during construction would be limited. The project sponsor has 
included a mitigation measure addressing this potential impact. 

Dredging, Spoils Disposal and Other Ray Water Quality Impacts : Dredging 
and spoils disposal would be done in accordance with requirements of the 
Army Corps of Engineers designed to mitigate impacts on Bay water quality 
to insignificance. Temporary impacts from pile driving into clean sand at 
the North Terminal would not produce significant impacts. Runoff from 
paved, impervious surfaces would not increase substantially in comparison 
to existing conditions. No detectable permanent impacts on San Francisco 
Bay water quality are anticipated. 

Energy : Increased energy consumption on-site would result from diesel and 
gasoline fuel use by new container cranes and yard equipment. Off-site 
energy use would result from additional truck, rail and ship cargo movements. 
A shift of some trips from truck to rail would result in increased energy 
efficiency per unit of cargo handled. 

Geology and Seismic Hazards : Potential problems of development on landfill 
would be mitigated to insignificance by compliance with the recommendations 
resulting from site-specific geotechnical investigations. 

Land Use Effects from Islais Creek Closure : At the time of preparation of 
the Initial Study, a fixed bridge east of the existing Third Street bridge 
was contemplated. This bridge would have closed Islais Creek to navigation 
west of the proposed new bridge and discussion of the land use impacts of 
such closure was planned for the EIR. Further consultation with the Coast 
Guard and examination of draw bridge options led to a Port staff decision 
in favor of some form of operable bridge that would preserve navigability 

65 



IV. Impacts 

of the western portion of Islais Creek. Therefore, the discussion of 
potential land use impacts from closure has been limited to a brief discus- 
sion in the Alternatives Chapter (pages 137 and 138). 

Noise : Maximum pile driving noise at the edge of Port property would be 93 
dBA. Other construction noise would not be expected to be heard beyond the 
boundaries of Port property. Project-generated increases in truck traffic 
would not be great enough to produce an audible change in traffic noise. 
Train noise impacts are covered starting on page 97. 

Popul ation : No housing would be displaced. Employment generation would be 
up to about 100-150 new permanent and intermittent jobs and would not 
create a substantial demand for new housing. 

# Public Transit : A maximum of fewer than twenty new person round trips per 
day would be distributed over three existing MUNI lines serving the project 
area. This increase in demand would not be noticeable. 

Utilities/Public Services : Increased demand for public services and utili- 
ties attributable to the proposed project would not require additional 
employees or expansion of existing utility facilities. Insignificant in- 
creases in utility services to Pier 98 would be associated with development 
of public facilities. The Police and Fire Departments have indicated that 
the proposed project would not create any additional demand for their res- 
pective services. No major expansion of power or communications lines 
would be necessary as a result of the project. 

Visual Impacts : Both terminals are currently active cargo handling facili- 
ties and all the proposed improvements would continue existing terminal 
operations within existing terminal boundaries in an industrial area. 

66 



IV. Impacts 



Therefore, there would not be substantial visual impacts. Any increase in 
light due to emplacement of new light standards would not be noticeable 
from the nearest residential neighborhoods with a view of the Port, such as 
Potrero Hill and Hunters Point. 

Water Quality : No surface water or water supplies would be affected. Bay 
waters would not be substantially affected by the increase in ship calls or 
the dredging of Islais Creek. Runoff from impervious surfaces would in- 
crease, but not significantly in comparison to the existing setting. 

Wind and Shadow : Prevailing winds on the site are from the west and north- 
west with the Bay immediately downwind of the site. Modifications proposed 
for the site would not significantly alter wind currents in the area nor 
cast shadows over any public areas. 

TRANSPORTATION IMPACTS 

The proposed project is expected to change the cargo mix from the present 
split of 70% local traffic/30% long distance traffic to a 30% local/70% 
long distance ratio in 1995. North Terminal cargo would increase from 
about 440,000 short tons per year of container cargo to about 690,000 
short tons in 1988 and 880,000 short tons in 1995, with an approximately 
constant 100,000 short tons per year of break-bulk cargo. South Terminal 
cargo would increase from 550,000 short tons per year of containers to about 
910,000 short tons in 1988 and 2,100,000 short tons in 1995, with an approxi- 
mately constant 15,000 short tons per year of break-bulk cargo. 

The present pattern of freight transportation by truck to East Bay rail heads 
would gradually shift to rail as more shippers made use of the improved 
rail access provided by the on-dock ICTF at the South Terminal. The follow- 

67 



IV. Impacts 



i ng discussion of the potential impacts of the shift in mode of freight 
transportation and increase in the volume of freight transported is based 
on the Port of San Francisco Southern Waterfront Improvements Traffic Study 
by William Marconi, P.E.^ 

The following assumptions have been made in estimating future transportation 
conditions with implementation of the proposed project: 

o 1985 is the base year and 1995 is the year of expected project completion 

and appearance of the full impacts, 
o Port container traffic would be as predicted by Port staff, 
o ICTF use would be as predicted by Port staff, 
o Break-bulk traffic would remain at present levels. 

o Third Street and eastbound Army Street traffic would increase at 1% a 
year in addition to loads that new developments in this area, including 
the SFCT, will place upon it. 

o India Basin Industrial Park, Bay View Industrial Triangle, and Redevelop- 
ment Agency housing at Hunters Point would be fully developed by 1995. ^ 

o Truck and auto traffic generated by terminals would follow present traf- 
fic patterns. 

o The street pattern would remain essentially the same except for new on- 

and off-ramps to 1-280 at Evans Avenue, 
o Permanent and temporary employment at the SFCT would increase by 56% and 

peak hour auto traffic changes would be proportional to the increase, 
o No additional openings of the Third Street Bridge over Islais Creek would 

occur, because all Islais Creek development would be east of Third 

Street. 



68 



IV. Impacts 



Current Intersection Operating Conditions 

Table 12, page 70, shows the current volume/capacity (V/C) ratios and thus 
the operating conditions of the approaches to the three most important 
intersections on Third Street near the project under existing signal timing 
and striping conditions. The LOS (Level of Service, see page A-38) for 
each approach to an intersection is not the same if the signal timing has 
not been adjusted to equalize traffic delay on the different approaches. 
This is true for all intersections shown in Table 12. All approaches to 
the intersections on Table 12 except one, eastbound Army Street, operate at 
Level of Service C or better, indicating stable operation. Some restric- 
tion is implied by the Level of Service of C on westbound Cargo Way and 
westbound Evans Avenue in the PM peak period. Eastbound Army Street oper- 
ates at Service Level F in the AM peak hour, implying jammed conditions. 

The calculation of V/C ratios takes into consideration the number of buses 
and trucks, bus stops, turning movements, parking, pedestrian activity and 
traffic lane width. 

Machine traffic counts were made by staff of the San Francisco Department 
of Public Works Traffic Engineering Division on weekdays between June 20 
and July 2, 1985. Hand counts were made by the Traffic Consultant^ on 
weekdays between June 14 and July 1, 1985. 

South Terminal traffic generation was found to follow the pattern of the 
North Terminal given in the 1980 Marine Terminal Traffic Generation Manual, 
which developed relationships between port revenue tonnage and traffic 
generation, 3 as shown in Table 13, page 70. Therefore, the auto/truck 
ratios found for the South Terminal have been used in estimating future 
traffic patterns for the entire SECT. • 

69 



IV. Impacts 



Table 12. 1985 V/C Ratios at Approaches to Critical Signalized 
Intersections Near SFCT (Peak Directions)^ 



Intersection 




AM 


Peak 






PM 


Peak 




High2 LOS^ 


Low^ 


LOS 


High2 


LOS 


Low^ 


LOS 


3rd Street and Cargo Way 


0.55 


A 


0.26 


A 


0.78 


C 


0.38 


A 


3rd Street and Evans Ave. 


0.63 


B 


0.25 


A 


0.79 


C 


0.44 


A 


3rd and Army Streets 


1.00 


F 


0.63 


B 


0.63 


B 


0.47 


A 



1. Based on counts made on weekdays in the period June 14 to July 1, 1985. 

2. Note that this table gives the LOS for the approaches to each intersec- 
tion that have the best and worst existing conditions and that the typical 
LOS for each intersection as a whole is intermediate between the High and 
Low values given. There is a different LOS for each approach because 
existing traffic signal timing has not been adjusted to equalize traffic 
delay on the different approaches to some of the intersections. For ex- 
ample, in the AM peak at Third and Army Sts., northbound Third St. oper- 
ates at LOS B and eastbound Army St. at F. If nine seconds of green time 
were shifted from Third St. to Army St., both approaches would be at LOS C. 

3. LOS = Level of Service, see Appendix B, page A-38, for definitions. 
Source: William Marconi, P.E., Traffic Consultant. 

Table 13. Vehicle Use of Terminals by Type of Vehicle 



Vehicles 



Consultant Study 
of San Francisco 
South Terminal ^ 



Marine Terminal Traffic 
Generation Manual: San 
Francisco North Terminal ^ 



Trucks 

Autos, Pick-ups, and 
Service Vehicles 



62% 
38% 



65% 
35% 



1. Gate counts by William Marconi, P.E., on Thursday, June 6, Friday, June 
7, Friday, June 21, and Monday, June 24, 1985. 

2. Wilbur Smith and Associates (revised by MTC staff). Marine Terminal 
Traffic Generation Manual, MTC/BCDC, 1980. 



70 



IV. Impacts 



Current Queuing Conditions 

Trucks waiting to enter the SFCT queue at the Terminal entrances. Up to 
12 trucks have been observed waiting on Army Street (on Port property) at 
the North Terminal and 18 at the South Terminal. The queuing at the North 
Terminal restricts access to businesses located on Army Street immediately 
west of the gate. The South Terminal queuing causes no problem, because 
the waiting occurs on the portion of Jennings Street that is entirely de- 
voted to serving Port operations. 

The origin and destination percentages used in predicting the distribution 
of new Termi nal -associ ated trips to various routes are given in Table 14, 
page 72. 

SFCT-Generated Traffic 

The North Terminal use of the ICTF would go from in 1985 to almost 34,000 
trips per year in 1995. Note that terminal traffic is generally analyzed 
on an annual basis because of the wide daily variation in traffic depending 
on the number of ships berthed at the SFCT. New trips between the North 
Terminal (trucks and port packers) and the ICTF would not have an impact 
on the street system if an i ntertermi nal bridge were built because they 
would remain within the SFCT. 

Table 15, page 72, compares annual vehicular traffic generated on City 
streets by the North Terminal on City streets now and in 1995, based on the 
Marine Terminal Generation Manual, auto/truck ratios for the South Termi- 
nal, estimates of future employment, and Port staff estimates of future 
cargo movement. 

• • 

71 



I 



IV. Impacts 



Table 14. Trip Distribution of Terminal Traffic 



Type of 
Vehicle 



Desti nations 



South of 
Termi nals 



West of 
Termi nals 



Downtown 
San Francisco 
and Points North 



East Bay 



Autos 
Trucks 



22% 
44% 



24% 
6% 



23% 
1% 



31% 
49% 



Source: Wilbur Smith & Associates, "Ground Access Analysis," 1980, cited in DKS 
Associates, "Traffic Analysis for the Proposed San Francisco Container 
Terminal," 1983, p. 18. 



Table 15. North Terminal Annual Vehicular Travel Generation 

Trips 

1985 1995 



Container Vessels 

Trucks 95,600 126,500 

Autos 58,100 87,500 

Break-Bulk Vessels 

Trucks 16,300 16,300 

Autos 11,500 11,500 

Source: Port Commission staff and William Marconi, P.E., July 1985. 



72 



IV. Impacts 



In 1984, 823,000 metric revenue tons of cargo in containers and 20,000 mrt 
of break-bulk cargo were handled at the South Terminal. With the construc- 
tion of the ICTF, the Port staff expects a great increase in container 
traffic at the South Terminal, while break-bulk would at most remain at the 
current 1 evel . 

The South Terminal use of the ICTF would increase in Phase I from 4,260 
internal trips per year in 1985 to 127,300 trips in 1995. 

Phase II calls for the construction of two new berths. Piers 90 and 92, on 
the south side of Islais Creek Channel. This would increase the capacity of 
the South Terminal and the train and truck traffic generation. This phase 
would supplant the Grain Terminal, the Tidewater Sand and Gravel operation, 
the fertilizer/fish meal warehouse, the Baker Commodities tallow works and 
the recycling center on Amador Street. The loss of their traffic contribu- 
tion would counterbalance to some extent the added traffic generated by 
Phase II berth development. The rate of increase in container traffic would 
determine the timing of the Phase II expansion. 

A Container Freight Station (CFS) may be included in the South Terminal 
development. No projections for use of a SFCT-South CFS are available, so 
the Oakland CFS of American President Lines has been used as a model. ^ The 
Oakland CFS generated about 83 truck and 30 automobile trips per day in 
June 1985. A similar trip generation rate has been assumed for the South 
Terminal CFS in 1995. 

Table 16, page 74, shows the estimated vehicular traffic that would be gen- 
erated in 1995 with implementation of Phase II. Table 17, page 74, and 
Table 18, page 75, show the effect of SFCT changes on 1995 traffic volumes. 



73 



IV. Impacts 



Table 16. South Terminal Annual Vehicular Travel Generation 



Container Vessels 
Trucks 
Autos 



1985 



116,300 
70,600 



Trips/year 
1995 



206,700 
130,000 



1995 
With Phase II 



413,400 
260,000 



Break-Bulk Vessels 
Trucks 
Autos 



3,200 
2,200 



3,200 
2,200 



3,200 
2,200 



Source: Wil li am Marconi , P.E. 



Table 17. Added 


Peak Hour Traffic Load 


Caused by Phase I Port Expansion 








vph (peak direction) 






AM Peak 




PM Peak 


Street 


Trucks 


Autos 


% In- 
crease 
(PCE)* 


% In- 
crease 

Trucks Autos (PCE)* 


3rd Street NB 
(at Army St.) 


28 


13 


4.9 




Evans Avenue EB 
(at 3rd St.) 


46 


29 


21.0 




Evans Avenue WB 
(at 3rd St.) 








19 21 4.9 


Cargo Way WB 
(at 3rd St.) 


28 


13 


29.7 


20 24 15.7 


Army Street EB 
(at 3rd St.) 


20 


15 


4.6 




Army Street WB 
(at 3rd St.) 








12 22 11.2 



* Passenger Car Equivalents over 1995 Base Conditions 

NB = Northbound, SB = Southbound, EB = Eastbound, WB = Westbound 

Source: Wi 1 1 i am Marconi , P.E. 



74 



IV. Impacts 



Table 18. Added Peak Hour Traffic Load Caused by Phase II Port Expansion 



Peak Direction AM Peak vph^ 

Street % In- 

Trucks Autos crease 
(PCE)2 



3rd Street NB 65 32 14 

(at Army St.) 

3rd Street NB 28 6 6 

(at Cargo Way) 

3rd Street SB, Left Turn 36 23 57 

(at Cargo Way) 

Evans Avenue EB 28 6 12 

(at 3rd St.) 

Cargo Way WB 65 32 70 

(at 3rd St.) 

Army Street EB 36 23 * 

(at 3rd St.) 



NB = Northbound, SB = Southbound, EB = Eastbound, WB = Westbound 

1. V/C ratios in the PM peak period would not be affected by Phase II 
generated traffic because movements into and out of SFCT-South would coin- 
cide with the offpeak direction of travel. For example, all exiting move- 
ments must travel north on Third Street and in the PM peak this is a non- 
critical direction of travel. AM peak = 8 - 9 AM. 

2. Passenger Car Equivalents over 1995 Base Conditions, increase in SECT 
contribution to traffic. 

* All of these vehicles would be in the right turn lane which is not one 
of the critical lanes on this approach and therefore does not enter into 
the analysis. , 

Source: William Marconi, P.E. 



75 



IV, Impacts 



The analysis conservatively assumes that all Port traffic would be concen- 
trated during one working shift rather than being spread over two or more 
shifts. 

If the i ntertermi nal bridge were not built, an additional 63,600 truck 
trips would be generated annually between the North Terminal and the ICTF, 
and additional traffic would be superimposed on the Third and Army Streets 
and Third Street and Cargo Way Intersections, as shown in Table 19, page 
77. 

Queuing After Project Implementation 

Assuming that existing work rules govern the queueing and no gate changes 
would be made, the queueing at the North Terminal would be lengthened by in- 
creased traffic loads in 1995. A 30% increase of container traffic carried 
by trucks would presumably increase queue lengths by a similar amount. 
Potential measures to relieve the situation are described under Mitigation, 
pages 124 and 125. 

The situation at the South Terminal in 1995 whould be better than it is 
today. Construction of a new entranceway to serve Pier 94 and the ICTF 
would split the entering traffic into two locations, thereby effectively 
halving the traffic load per entrance. In addition, the gate locations for 
the ICTF and Pier 94 would be located deeper within Port property, provid- 
ing queueing length for more trucks. 

Freeway Impacts 

SFCT traffic contributions to the existing Evans Avenue and Pennsylvania 
Avenue freeway on-ramps and to future off-ramps are shown in Table 20, page 
77. Since the ramps would operate well below their capacity, the new SFCT 



76 



IV. Impacts 



Table 19. Added Peak Hour Traffic Load Caused by Deletion of 

Interterminal Bridge 



Street AM Peak 

8-9 AM 

% In- 
Trucks crease 
(PCE) 



3rd Street NB 23 4 

(at Army St.) 

3rd Street SB, Left Turn 23 28 

(at Cargo Way) 

Army Street WB 16 8 

(at 3rd St.) 

Cargo Way WB 23 21 10 6 

(at 3rd St.) 



Source: Wi 1 1 i am Marconi , P.E. 



PM Peak 
4-5 PM 

% In- 
Trucks crease 
(PCE) 



Table 20. 1995 Traffic Estimates for 1-280 Ramps. 







AM Peak 


Contributed 


PM Peak 


Contributed 


Ramp 


Capaci ty 


Hour 


by Port Ex- 


Hour 


by Port Ex- 






Without 


pansion, 


Without 


pansion, 






Project 


Phase I & II 


Project 


Phase I & II 






7-8 AM 




4:30-5:30 




Evans Ave. 












Off-Ramp, NB 


1900 1 


275 


81 














Army St. 












Off-Ramp NB 




275 


12 






Evans Ave, 


1200 










On-Ramp, SB 








260 


27 


Pennsyl vani a 


1500 










Ave. On-Ramp, SB 








970 


40 


NB = Northbound, SB 


= Southbound 











1. The Evans and Army off-ramps will feed together. 



Source: Lincoln Chu, Chief, Project Development A Branch, CalTrans, letter 
to Scott Shoaf, Traffic Engineering Division, San Francisco Department of 
Public Works, of March 4, 1985, and William Marconi, P.E. 



77 



IV. Impacts 



traffic would not affect their operation. 

Table 21, page 79, shows 1995 freeway volumes. At Evans Avenue, the SFCT 
changes would add 1.7% to northbound 1-280 traffic during the AM peak and 
1.2% to southbound traffic in the PM peak. This would not cause freeway 
capacity to be exceeded but the freeway would be so close to capacity that 
even small increments of traffic could noticeably increase vehicle delay. 
1-280 and US 101 north of the county line are expected to exceed capacity 
at peak hour in 1995 with or without the proposed project. The added delay 
on 1-280 at the county line has not been determined. The percentage in- 
creases would be less than 0.4% and 0.3% respectively. Although this would 
be a small increase, with the freeway at capacity at the county line the 
new trips would either have to use City streets for their peak hour trips, 
force an equivalent number of other freeway users to seek non-freeway 
routes, or prolong the time of rush hour capacity flows. The same condi- 
tion would hold true on U.S. 101 at the county line. 

The streets available to carry overflow traffic from the freeways are Bay- 
shore Blvd., Mission Street, San Jose Avenue, Junipero Serra Blvd., Lake 
Merced Blvd. and Skyline Blvd. These streets have a total of 16 lanes in 
each direction, with an estimated capacity of 10,700 vehicles per direction 
(capacity estimate by the Traffic Consultant). Nineteen ninety-five traffic 
estimates for these and complete current traffic counts are not available 
for these streets. Using available data, the Traffic Consultant estimates 
that there are now 6000 to 7000 southbound vehicles using these streets in 
the PM peak hour. Assuming a ten percent traffic growth by 1995, the 
traffic volumes would be in the range of 6600 to 7700 vph. This would 
indicate that the street system could carry freeway overflow in the PM peak 



78 



IV. Impacts 



Table 21. Estimated 1995 Freeway Volumes (Demand) 



Freeway 



AM Peak 

hour 
Demand 

7-8 



Traffic PM Peak 
Maximum Phases hour Maximum 
Capacity 1 I + II Demand Capacity ^ 

4:30-5:30 



Traffic 
Phases 
I + II 



1-280 SB, South 
of Evans Ave. 



5500 5700 



67 



1-280 NB, South 
of Evans Ave, 

1-280 SB. North 
of County Line 

1-280 NB, North 
of County Line 

U.S. 101 SB, North 
of County Line 

U.S. 101 NB, North 
of County Line 



5500 6000 



93 



8300 8000 



31 



9000 8000 



62 



83002 8000 



90003 8000 



22 



45 



NB = Northbound, SB = Southbound. 

1. Based on 2000 vehicles per hour per lane, as assumed in the Downtown Plan 
EIR (DTP EIR). 

2. This estimate is in agreement with the DTP EIR, p. IV.E.35. 

3. This estimate, which is about 9% greater than estimates in the DTP EIR, is 
based on 1985 estimates from CalTrans, issued since certification of the DTP 
EIR. The difference is within the probable error of the estimation methods. 
Note that DTP EIR estimates included Port traffic. 



Sources: CalTrans "Route Concept Report for U.S. 101" (1985 unpublished draft, 
used with CalTrans permission), and "Route Concept Report for 1-280" (1985 unpub- 
lished draft, used with CalTrans permission). 



79 



IV. Impacts 



hour. Morning peak hour conditions are usually less crowded. 
Cumulative Traffic Impact Analysis 

The area surrounding the SFCT is mostly developed with warehouses and fac- 
tories. Therefore, new added traffic generation from these areas would not 
be expected unless there were land use changes. Part of India Basin Indus- 
trial Park and land for 210 units of housing on the central and north sides 
of the Hunters Point Hill remain to be developed. There are also about 3.4 
acres in the Bay View Industrial Triangle that are either unoccupied or 
occupied by low-intensity development. 

The estimated traffic that would be generated by development of this land 
is shown in Table 22, page 81. The location of the generators and the 
potential origins and destinations of traffic bound to and from the genera- 
tors were examined. The traffic was then assigned to various roadways as 
shown in Table 23, page 81. 

Recent projects proposed in the project area, not included in Tables 22 and 
23, are East India Basin Industrial Park (83.121E, Negative Declaration 
issued November 8, 1985) and Galvez Bay Industrial Park (85.660E, applica- 
tion filed December 19, 1985). Analysis performed for the East India Basin 
Industrial Park indicates that with these additional projects, the Level of 
Service at Third Street and Evans Avenue would remain at LOS B during the 
PM peak (see Table 26, page 86). 

A good part of these new trips would not have an impact on streets in their 
area because the market area of the largest new generator, the retail cen- 
ter, located at Third Street and Evans Avenue, would be almost entirely 
south and east of the India Basin Industrial Park. Also the street pattern 



80 



IV. Impacts 



and topography of the Hunters Point Redevelopment Area induces traffic to 
use streets south of the Industrial Park rather than Evans Avenue or Cargo 
Way (see Fig. 14, page 90). 

The Navy's decision to base part of the USS Missouri battlegroup in the Bay 
Area would cause changes in the project area if the plan is implemented. 
Deputy Mayor James Lazarus has stated^ that four frigates and two mine- 
sweepers manned by reserve units would be based at Hunters Point. In addi- 



80a 



IV. Impacts 



Table 22. Traffic Generation From New Generators 1995 



Generator 



Size Daily Genera- 
tion Rate-'- 



ADt2 am Peak PM Peak 
(Two- Way) (Two-Way) (Two-Way) 



India Basin 
Industrial Park 

Retail Center - 
3rd and Evans 

Retail 

Office 

Bay View 

Industrial 

Triangle 

Hunters Point 
Housing 

TOTAL 



5.5 acres 68.1/acre 



50,000 sq.ft. 82.0/1000 sq.ft. 
45,000 sq.ft. 17.7/1000 sq.ft. 



3.4 acres 68.1/acre 
210 units 4.3/unit 



380 



4100 
800 



230 



900 



6410 



34 



135 
113 



23 

90 



395 



40 



330 
126 



24 

90 



610 



1. Vehicle trip ends, calculated from ITE Traffic Generation Manual (Third Edi 
tion), 1982, §§ 100, 200, 700 and 800. 

2. ADT = average daily trips. 



Source: William Marconi, P.E. 



Table 23. 1995 Peak Hour Traffic Load Added 
by New Land Development 
(Peak Direction) Vehicles Per Hour^ 



Street Approach 


AM Peak 


PM Peak 


3rd Street NB (at Evans Avenue) 


32 




3rd Street NB (at Army Street) 


38 




3rd Street SB (at Cargo Way) 




43 


3rd Street SB (at Evans Avenue) 




41 


Evans Avenue EB (at 3rd Street) 


45 




Evans Avenue WB (at 3rd Street) 




41 


Cargo Way WB (at 3rd Street) 


3 


3 



NB = Northbound, SB = Southbound, EB = Eastbound, WB = Westbound 

1. Vehicle trip ends. Calculations based on ITE Trip Generation Manual (Third 

Edition), 1982. 



Source: Wi 1 1 i am Marconi , P.E. 



81 



IV. Impacts 



tion, he said that the Navy expects 1500 to 2000 units of new housing to be 
built within the shipyard. These, together with added repair work at the 
shipyard generated by the presence of new naval vessels, would generate new 
traffic. 

How much this would add to existing shipyard traffic of 560 vehicles in the 
PM peak cannot be determined at this time because of the preliminary state 
of the Navy's plans. The proposed Hunters Point housing would probably be 
for Navy personnel, if the housing were built in the shipyard area as is 
now being considered. Certain mitigating factors could lessen the poten- 
tial transportation impacts from this proposal if workers were to live in 
areas outside the shipyard. The Navy has proposed direct ferry service 
from Treasure Island to Hunters Point, which could divert some auto trips 
from City streets to the ferry. ^ Improved transit service to Hunters Point 
would also eliminate some auto trips. The shipyard's south gate could be 
opened for exiting traffic as it has been in the past. This would divide 
the traffic load over two routes. The Navy proposal would be subject to 
separate environmental review under Federal and State law. 

New Evans Avenue ramps to 1-280 are in the CalTrans 5-year State Transpor- 
tation Improvement Program (STIP). These ramps would serve traffic coming 
from and going to the south on 1-280. They essentially duplicate existing 
ramps at Army Street and Pennsylvania Avenue, so their main effect on the 
project area would be to attract traffic from the South Terminal and the 
Industrial Park from Cargo Way to Evans Avenue. Their effect has been 
taken into consideration in determining 19^5 V/C ratios. 

In developing the ICTF the Port proposes to eliminate the intersection of 
Amador Street and Cargo Way and to shift the entrance and exit to Amador 

82 



IV. Impacts 

west to the intersection of Cargo Way and Third Street. Inside the South 
Terminal Amador would be connected to a loop roadway that would connect not 
only to the ICTF but also to the Pier 94/96 gate at Cargo Way and the ICTF 
as an alternative means of egress from the area. 

The new entrance/exit would change Cargo Way and Third Street from a four- 
way to a five-way intersection. Since traffic leaving the terminal would 
be limited to a right turn movement only from Cargo Way onto northbound 
Third Street, and since this movement could take place at the same time as 
the left turn movement from southbound Third Street onto Cargo Way, no new 
phases would have to be added to the traffic signal. As a result, traffic 
operation at this location would not be affected. 

Several years ago proposals were considered for both light rail service and 
a widening of the median island on Third Street. It was concluded that the 
effects of these changes on traffic between Army Street and Evans Avenue 
would be severe. Since the probability of these changes occurring in the 
next ten years is low, their effect has not been considered in this EIR. 
Even if a decision were made to change median islands on Third Street, 
Islands could be eliminated between Army Street and Evans Avenue. 

Predicted base-line 1995 volume/capacity ratios for the key intersections 
are shown in Tables 24, page 84, and 25, page 86. They include new land 
development and the new Evans Avenue ramps but not the effects of Port 
expansion which are considered later. Table 24 shows the ratios under 
existing striping and signal timing patterns and Table 25 the ratios which 
could be obtained with optimum striping and signal timing.^ The latter 
would result in similar V/C ratios in all directions. 

83 



IV. Impacts 



Table 24. Baseline 1995 V/C Ratios: 
Peak Directions -- Existing 1985 Signal Timing and 
Striping Conditions, No Added Port Traffic 



Intersection AM Peak^ LOS PM Peak^ LOS 

3rd Street and Cargo Way 

3rd Street NB^ 0.44 A 

Cargo Way WB 0.25 A 

3rd Street SB 0.44 A 

Cargo Way WB 0.37 A 

3rd Street and Evans Avenue 

3rd Street NB 0.29 A 

Evans Avenue EB 0.52 A 

3rd Street SB 0.50 A 

Evans Avenue WB 0.92 E 

3rd and Army Streets 

3rd Street NB 0.67 B 

Army Street EB 1.10 F 

3rd Street NB 0.65 B 

3rd Street SB 0.58 A 

Army Street WB . 0.47 A 

NB = northbound, SB = southbound, EB = eastbound, WB = westbound 
1. 8-9 AM 2. 4-5 PM 
Source: William Marconi, P.E. 



84 



VI. Impacts 

Most intersections would operate in a stable mode with no change in signal 
timing, with the exception of the westbound Evans Avenue approach in the 
evening peak hour and the eastbound Army Street approach in the morning 
peak hour. By signal timing adjustments and minor striping changes, all 
could be brought into a stable operating range. 

When the new ICTF-generated traffic volumes are translated into added 
traffic loads, the volume/capacity ratios shown in Table 26, page 86, would 
develop at the key intersections. This assumes optimization of traffic 
striping and signal timing, which are planned by the Department of Public 
Works. 6 

The additional traffic that Phase I would add to the streets in the peak 
hours is reflected in the small change in V/C ratios. The worst intersec- 
tion would be Third and Army Streets in the morning peak hour, and that 
would remain at level of Service C, a stable operation, or better. 

If Phase II were completed, another increment of traffic would be added and 
V/C ratios would be affected as shown in Table 27, page 87. Even if the 
interterminal bridge were not built, operating conditions would change 
little, as shown in Table 27, page 87. 

Even with these conservative scenarios, all intersections would remain with- 
in a stable range although Third and Army Streets in the morning peak would 
be close to Level of Service D, a situation approaching unstable flow. 

Construction Impacts 

Cumulative construction impacts were analyzed for the SFCT, the Griffith 
Street Clean Water Project, the India Basin Redevelopment projects, and the 
I-280/Evans Avenue ramps. Anticipated construction schedules for these pro- 

85 



VI. Impacts 



Table 

Peak Directions - 
No 


25. 1995 V/C Ratios: 

Timing and Striping Optimized, 
Added Port Traffic 






Intersection 


AM Peakl LOS 


PM Peak2 


LOS 


orQ otreet ana uargo way 


U • OH rt 


fl 4.3 


A 


3rd Street and Evans Avenue 


0.35 A 


0.62 


B 


3rd and Army Streets 


0.70 B 


0.48^ 


A 



1. 8-9 AM 2. 4-5 PM 

3. This would be 0.57 A without the optimization currently planned by the 
Department of Public Works, see Notes — Transportation 2a. 

Source: William Marconi, PE. 



Table 26. Cumulative 1995 V/C Ratios: Phase I Port Traffic Included^ 



AM Peak 



PM Peak 



Inter- 
Section 



With L0S3 Without LOS With LOS Without LOS 
IT Bridge^ IT Bridge IT Bridge IT Bridge 



3rd Street and 0.36 
Cargo Way 

3rd Street and 0.39 
Evans Way 

3rd Street and 0.73 
Army St. 



0.38 
0.39 
0.74 



A 
A 



0.44 



0.64 B 



0.49^ A 



0.44 



0.64 B 



0.5l5 A 



1. Assuming optimization of signal timing and lane marking. 

2. IT = Intertermi nal . 

3. LOS = Level of Service. 

4. This would be 0.57 A without the optimization currently planned by the 
Department of Public Works, see Notes — Transportation 4. 

5. This would be 0,60 B without the optimization currently planned by the 
Department of Public Works, see Notes — Transportation 4. 

Source: William Marconi, P.E. 



86 



IV. Impacts 



Table 27. Effect of Intertermi nal Bridge on Cumulative 1995 V/C Ratios: 

Port Traffic Phases I and II Included^ 



AM Peak PM Peak 



Inter- 
section 


With 
IT Bridge^ 


2 

LOS 


1 1 I. 1- - A- 

Without 
IT Bridge 


LOS 


With 
IT Bridge 


LOS 


Without 
IT Bridge 


LOS 


3rd Street and 
Cargo Way 


0.45 


A 


0.49 


A 


0.47 


A 


0.49 


A 


3rd Street and 
Evans Avenue 


0.42 


A 


0.48 


A 


0.64 


B 


0.64 


B 


3rd Street and 
Army Street 


0.78 


C 


0.78 


C 


0.49^ 


A 


0.51 


a5 



1. Assuming optimization of signal timing and striping. 

2. IT = Intertermi nal . 

3. LOS = Level of Service. 

4. This would be 0.57 A without the changes currently planned by the Depart- 
ment of Public Works, see Notes — Transportation 4. 

5. This would be 0,60 B without the changes currently planned by the Depart- 
ment of Public Works, see Notes — Transportation 4, 

Source: William Marconi, P.E. 



jects are shown in Table 28, page 88. The peak hours selected for analysis 
were 7-8 AM and 4-5 PM, because the traffic impacts of construction workers 
going to and from work would be greatest during these hours. These do not 
necessarily coincide with the overall commute peaks. 



The cumulative peak construction period would be from August to November 
1986. The intersections of Army and Third Streets and Evans Avenue and 
Third Street would be most affected by construction traffic. The V/C 
ratios for construction and non-construction traffic at these intersections 
for the August-November 1986 period are shown in Table 29, page 88. 



87 



IV. Impacts 



Table 28. Construction Schedule for Islais Creek Area 



Construction Projects 


Project 




1 986 


1 987 




J F 


MAMJJASOND 


JFMAMJJASOND 


I.C.T.F. 


<- 


> 










North Terminal 
Modernization 














Intertenni nal Bridge 






> 


Griffith St. Clean 
Water Project 














Redevel opment 
Parcel "D" 


<--• 


> 




Redevel opment 
Parcels "B,C" 


<--• 


> 




Redevel opment 
Parcel "K" 


<--■ 


---> 





Sources: Ron Zimmer, Sverdrup & Parcel; Robert Badgely, Construction Ma- 
nagement Division, San Francisco Bureau of Engineering; Gene Blazick, 
Vickerman/Zachary/Mil ler; Marjorie Cummings, San Francisco Redevelopment 
Agency; Scott Shoaf, Traffic Engineering Division, S.F. Dept. of Public 
Works; and William Marconi, P.E., Traffic Consultant. 



Table 29. Cumulative Traffic Impacts During Peak Construction Period of 
August - November 1986 (construction + non-construction traffic): 
V/C Ratios with Traffic Striping and Signal Timing Optimized 





AM PEAK 




PM PEAK 




Intersecti on 


V/C Ratio 


LOS 


V/C Ratio 


LOS 


3rd & Army Sts 


0.78 


C 


0.52 


A 


3rd St. & Evans 
Avenue 


0.40 


A 


0.59 


A 



Source: William Marconi, P.E., Traffic Consultant. 



88 



IV. Impacts 



With construction traffic. Third and Army would operate at Level of Service 
C in the AM peak period and at A in the PM peak period. Third and Evans 
would operate at LOS A during AM and PM peaks. This analysis assumes opti- 
mization of signal timing and traffic striping. 

# Rail freight service on the Peninsula has decreased in the last twenty 
years, with shorter and less frequent trains. Since October, 1985, there 
is one Southern Pacific train (the Mission Bay-Warm Springs Turn) that runs 
six days per week, leaving San Francisco early Monday through Saturday 
morning and passing San Carlos around 1:00 AM. This train returns to San 
Francisco on the same days, following the last morning commuter train from 
San Jose, passing San Carlos about 9:00 AM. The proposed project would 
not restore freight traffic to pre-1980 levels. If the increases in pas- 
senger train operations considered in the Peninsula Mass Transit Study were 
to occur, they would have a greater effect on total train frequency than 
would the proposed project. 

Railroad Operations 

# The ICTF would handle trains carrying cargo in and out of the Port area from 
and to the Bayshore train yard just south of the County line in Brisbane, 
where longer, unit trains would be made up for dispatch across the country 
(see Figure 14, page 90, for location of the Bayshore yard). The railroad 
consultant to the Port, Sverdrup & Parcel (Ron Zimmer, Project Manager), 
estimates that under full operation, upon completion of Phases I and II, 
there would be as many as six unit train trips (some in and some out) be- 
tween 7 PM and 6 AM daily. A more probable case would be four train 
trips (two in and two out) in this night time period. In the 9 AM to 3 
PM period, under peak volume conditions, there could be two unit trains 



89 



IV. Impacts 



in and two out. There would be no unit trains during the peak commute 
periods of 6 AM to 9 AM and 3 PM to 7 PM. 

Each shuttle train of up to twenty-five cars would be up to a half mile 
long and operate at up to ten miles per hour (mph) under highest volume 
conditions. When operating, the trains would block thoroughfares such as 
Evans Avenue. At a speed of ten mph, the blockage time of each shuttle 
train per affected street vehicle would vary from zero to four minutes, 
depending on the length of the train, and would average about two minutes. 
Blockage of Third Street would vary from four to seven minutes if starting 
from a dead stop. The maximum probable delay is shown in Table 30, page 
93. 

The potential effect of rail delays on movement of emergency vehicles in 
San Francisco is discussed starting on page 95. No conflict between unit 
trains and commuter trains is anticipated south of the Bayshore train yard. 



89a 



IV. Impacts 




90 



IV. Impacts 



because the unit trains would operate in between commuter trains and would 
not run at peak commuter traffic times. ^ Under conditions of high ICTF 
use, perhaps once a week it would be desirable to dispatch 10- to 25-car 

# trains between the Bayshore yard and the ICTF in the daytime. Each unit 
train would block each Peninsula intersection for a maximum of 2.2 minutes. 

# MTC completed the Peninsula Mass Transit Study^ in July, 1985, and stated 
that "The long run objective for the Peninsula corridor is to provide fre- 
quent, all-day rail transit service." The study considered the desirability 
of creation of a Joint Powers Authority to acquire the Southern Pacific- 
owned right-of-way and assume control over the operation of passenger 
trains. The study was primarily a passenger service study and did not ex- 
amine the role of freight train service in the Bay Area economy. Midday 
passenger train headways of as little as 7.5 minutes were examined; how- 
ever, since peak period headways now run four to ten minutes, it seems 
unlikely that midday demand would ever justify such frequent service. Any 
future changes in train scheduling would take into consideration the needs 
of both freight and passenger service and would probably be designed to 
accommodate both types of service. 

The Postal Service has indicated that although increased train movements 
would delay some mail delivery trips, this delay would be short and infre- 
quent enough not to pose a problem.^ The unit trains could impact vehicular 
traffic at Peninsula at-grade crossings. However, most of the unit trains 
would travel between midnight and 6 AM when traffic is light. The trains 
would move at passenger train speed, about 50 miles per hour, and would 
occupy each intersection for about one and a quarter minutes. 

# The Western Pacific Railroad now provides service from the North Terminal 

91 



VI. Impacts 



to the South Terminal through a complicated series of switching arrangements 
involving several rail lines. ^^'^^^ In December 1985, Western Pacific filed 
for abandonment of lines which include a portion of this switching route. 
This would eliminate rail service to berth Ml and make rail service to the 
rest of SFCT-North less convenient. 

Dean Macris, San Francisco Director of City Planning, representing the San 
Francisco Transportation Policy Group, has protested Western Pacific's pro- 
posed track abandonment on the grounds that: 1) there is a need for compe- 
titive rail freight service; 2) there are prospects for freight traffic to 
increase; 3) the environmental impact upon San Francisco has not been ade- 
quately addressed. ^^'^ 

The Port is currently analyzing options for a connecting service from SFCT- 
North to the main line track, should the abandonment be approved, in order 
to avoid the detour to the next main line connection further north in the 
San Francisco trackage. Alternatives being considered include a connection 
to the main line track via the proposed i ntertermi nal bridge and the Cargo 
Way track or movement of containers from SFCT-North by equipment such as 
port-packers over the i ntertermi nal bridge to the ICTF. The latter option 
may be the most cost-effective and would eliminate the present time-con- 
suming, complicated switching operations," 



91a 



IV. Impacts 



Qn-Street Parking 

There are no commercial off-street parking facilities in the vicinity of 
the SFCT; the Terminals and Port tenants have provided private parking. 
The on-street demand is largely for all-day parking. Streets around the 
North Terminal are approaching their parking capacity, but there is no pro- 
blem at the South Terminal, as shown in Table 31, page 93. 

Project-related new jobs at the SFCT would increase the demand for on-street 
parking. If no employees shifted to transit or van pools, and no additional 
off-street parking were incorporated into the SFCT, a peak demand for 65 
additional spaces would be generated at the North Terminal and 43 additional 
spaces at the South Terminal (based on 1.3 persons per car). 

This increase would present no problem at the South Terminal, since the 
July 1985 survey showed 278 empty on-street spaces within 2000 feet of the 
Terminal gate and 101 empty on-street spaces at 11:00 AM within 1000 feet of 
the Terminal gate (occupancy of 22%). The predicted demand would exceed 
the parking supply in the North Terminal since the Traffic Consultant's 
survey showed 24 empty spaces within 2000 feet and 6 empty spaces within 
1000 feet of the North Terminal Gate (85% occupancy). If the proposal to 
optimize street capacity at Third and Army Streets^ by changing lane strip- 
ing is adopted, approximately 18 on-street parking spaces would be lost. 
Parking for 10 to 20 anticipated new permanent employees would be provided 
on-site at the North Terminal. The vehicles for which there would be no 



92 



IV, Impacts 



# Table 30. Vehicular Delay Caused by ICTF Trains in San Francisco 



Average Vehicular Maximum Maximum Total 
Street Time Volume During Number of Daily Delay in 

Single Blockage Blockages Vehicle-Hours^ 



Third Street 


9 


AM-3 PM 


130 


14 


110 


Third Street 


7 


PM-6 AM 


25 


18 


26 


Evans Avenue 


9 


AM-3 PM 


54 


14 


25 


Evans Avenue 


7 


PM-6 AM 


18 


18 


11 


Jerrold Ave, 


9 


AM-3 PM 


35 Est. 2 


14 


16 


Jerrold Ave, 


7 


PM-6 AM 


4 Est. 2 


18 


2 


Cargo Way 


9 


AM-3 PM 


25 


14 


12 


Cargo Way 


7 


PM-6 AM 


12 


18 


7 






HIGHEST TOTAL 


DAILY DELAY 


(Third Street) 


140 



1. Average 4-minute traffic flow during the given time period x average 
delay of 2 minutes x number of blockages (7-minute average flow and 3.5 
minutes average delay for Third Street, per Ronald N. Zimmer, Port 
Train Consultant, December 16, 1985), 

2, Jerrold Ave, source counts were from the early 1970s, They were in- 
creased based on the Traffic Consultant's judgement and for that reason 
are labelled Est. 



Source: William Marconi, P.E., and Bendix Environmental Research, Inc. 







Table 31. On-Street 


Parki ng Conditions 




Termi nal 


On-Street Spaces 
Within 2000 Feet 


Empty On-Street 
Spaces at 11:00 AM 


Percent 
Occupancy 


North Terminal 


185 


24 


87 


South Terminal 


320 


278 


13 


Source: Survey 
18, 1985. 


by Traffic Consultant 


at 10:15 - 11:15 AM, 


Thursday, July 



93 



IV. Impacts 



parking space would tend to circle hunting for a space, then would park 
further than 2000 feet from the Terminal if no other provision were made 
for them. 



NOTES — TRANSPORTATION: 

1. Available for public revue in the project file at the Office of Environ- 
mental Review, Department of City Planning, 450 McAllister Street, San 
Franci sco. 

2. Developments currently being planned by the Redevelopment Agency are 
included to provide a comprehensive cumulative impacts analysis. Some 
of these projects may not be implemented or may change in the future. 

3. Wilbur Smith and Associates (revised by MTC staff), "Marine Terminal 
Traffic Generation Manual," MTC/BCDC, 1980. 

4. Tim Titus, APL Port Manager, telephone conversation of July 1985. 

5. Telephone conversation of July 1985. 

6. A plan for this optimization has been developed by the Department of Pub- 
lic Works and is now going through the approval process. Scott Shoaf, 
DPW Traffic Engineering, telephone conversation of September 24, 1985. 

6a. In the late 1950's there were eight freight trains in and out per day. 

7. William Marconi, P.E., "Supplemental Traffic Report," San Francisco Con- 
tainer Terminal Modernization, 85.123E, August 15, 1985. 

8. Kaiser Engineers and Barton-Aschman Assoc. for MTC, "Peninsula Mass 
Transit Study," March 1985. 

9. Roger Parvin, Industrial Engineering Department of the Postal Service, 
telephone conversation of July 1985. 

10. A map showing these routes is available for public review in the project 
file at the Department of City Planning, 450 McAllister Street. One 
route involves going north on AT-SP track which becomes an AT-SP line, 
going west on a Southern Pacific line at Sixteenth St. to join the main 
SP line, south on the main SP line, then east on the Quint St. SP line to 
about Third St., where the car can be transferred to the Belt Line to 
complete its trip to the South Terminal. The second route uses the 
Western Pacific line and goes northeast from the North- Termi nal to the 
Western Pacific 23rd St. rail yard, continues south on Western Pacific 
to south of Army St., west in a loop down to McKinnon St., where it 
transfers to Southern Pacific tract and joins the SP/Belt Line end of 
route 1. 



94 



IV. Impacts 



# 10a. In the past, rail to ferry services were provided from the Santa Fe 

China Basin rail yard and the Western Pacific yard north of SFCT-North. 
These ferry services were abandoned as uneconomical. 

# 10b. Dean L. Macris, Chairman, Transportation Policy Group, City and 

County of San Francisco, Verified Statement before the Interstate Com- 
merce Commission, Docket No. AB-105 (Sub-No. 8), December 11, 1985. 

11. Velio Kiisk, Chief Harbor Engineer, letter of August 13, 1985. 



94a 



IV. Impacts 



Emergency Services 

Potential effects of increased rail activity at the ICTF were di scussed wi th 
staff of the Fire and Police Departments and the San Francisco Emergency 
Ambul ance Servi ce. 

Assistant Chief Gerald Cullen of the Fire Department is concerned about the 
Fire Department's ability to respond to alarms from Engine Company 25 at 
Third Street and Cargo Way and Engine Company 9, Truck Company 9 and Battal- 
lion 10 from Station 9 at Jerrold Avenue near Napoleon Street, if unit 
trains blocked Jerrold Avenue, Evans Avenue or Third Street (see Figure 
15, page 96). Companies from both stations could be blocked simultanously 
by a 25-car train for less than one minute. 

About half the calls for Engine 25 come from south of Cargo Way and service 
to this area would be impacted by additional train movements. The alter- 
nate route of response via Third Street, Army Street, Evans Avenue, Toland 
Street and Oakdale Avenue back to Third Street would be longer than the 
straight line response on Third Street. 

Chief Cullen was also concerned about the docking facility for the fire 
boat adjacent to the Engine 25 fi rehouse on the south side of Islais Creek 
east of the existing Third Street Bridge (see Figure 14, page 90, for loca- 
tion of this fi rehouse). This docking site is used during stormy weather. 
Trains on the new drawbridge could slow raising of the bridge in an emer- 
gency.! 

• 

Officer Michael Mahony of Potrero Station indicated that additional trains 
to the ICTF would impact Police Department response. About a third of the 
Potrero Station calls come from south of Cargo Way and 43% of the Station's 

95 



IV. Impacts 




96 



IV. Impacts 



calls occur between 4 PM and midnight. Between midnight and 6 PM the 
percentage drops to 11%.^ 

Robert Navarro, Chief Paramedic of the San Francisco Health Department,^ 
felt that occasional street blockage of up to six minutes would not pre- 
sent much difficulty for his operations. He suggested that advance infor- 
mation would be helpful in routing ambulances. See the Mitigation Measures 
chapter, page 126, for implementation of this suggestion. 

# Freight train blockage of Peninsula intersections would increase from 
about 1.2 to 1.7 minutes per train at night and about 1.4 to 2.2 minutes 
per train in the daytime. Current passenger trains, which make up 95% of 
train traffic on the Peninsula line, block each intersection about 0.8 min- 
utes when there is no local stop and 0.9 to 1,7 minutes when there is a 
local stop.^ 



NOTES — EMERGENCY SERVICES 

1. Telephone conversation of August 2, 1985. 

2. William Marconi, "Port of San Francisco Southern Waterfront Improvements 
Traffic Study," July 27, 1985, as revised September 29, 1985. 

3. Telephone conversation of July 22, 1985. 

# 4. Letter of David Forgie, Triumph Marketing, Port Consultant, to Selina 
Bendix, Bendix Environmental Research, Inc., EIR Consultant, of December 
16, 1985. 

Train Noise Impacts^ 

The SECT is in an industrial area and there are no noise-sensitive land uses 
nearby. The noise-sensitive occupancies that would be affected by this pro- 
ject are homes near the Southern Pacific railroad tracks between San Fran- 
cisco and San Jose. In San Francisco people whose homes adjoin the railroad 

97 



IV. Impacts 



tracks on Oakdale, Williams and Paul Avenues would be affected (approxima- 
tely 100 homes). Between the Bayshore yard and San Jose, the tracks run 
through industrial and residential neighborhoods in South San Francisco, 
San Bruno, Millbrae, Burlingame, San Mateo, Belmont, San Carlos, Redwood 
City, Atherton, Menlo Park, Palo Alto, Mountain View, Sunnyvale, Santa 
Clara, and San Jose. In San Jose, south of the Southern Pacific depot, the 
tracks run primarily through industrial neighborhoods. 



97a 



IV. Impacts 



The area bordering the train tracks is currently exposed to noise from 
trains: there are 46 commute train operations per day between San Francisco 
and San Jose. Seven of these occur between 10:00 PM and 7:00 AM. There 
are approximately four freight trains per day in San Francisco, two of them 
at night. There are six freight train operations per day on the Peninsula, 
two of them at night. In San Jose south of the SP depot, there are twelve 
freight trains per day, four of them at night, and two passenger trains per 
day. There are also unscheduled local freight operations on all sections 
of the line. 

Background noise levels were evaluated on the basis of a 24-hour noise 
measurement near the intersection of Williams Avenue and Diana Street in 
San Francisco and previous noise studies made by the noise consultant. The 
day/night average noise level (L^jp) was 73 dB 100 feet from the railroad 
tracks from San Francisco to the SP depot in San Jose. South of the Southern 
Pacific depot in San Jose, the L^jp 100 feet from the tracks is approximately 
70 dB due to railroad operations. 

# There could be a maximum of 32 shuttle operations per day between the ICTF 
and the Bayshore yard with the ICTF operating at capacity, 18 at night and 
14 in the daytime. South of the Bayshore yard, typically, there would be an 
additional four unit trains per day, two at night and two during the day. 
There could be a maximum of ten trains per day, six at night and four 
during the day, with the ICTF operating at capacity. 

This increase in trains would cause an increase of 1-2 dB in the L^n on the 
average, with a maximum of 3 dB on days when the ICTF is operating at capa- 
city. Most people would not notice these increases in the average noise 
level. * • 

98 



IV. Impacts 



The noise levels can also be described by the nighttime equivalent noise 
level, Ipa*^ because of the increased sensitivity of people to noise at 
night. In San Francisco, the nighttime Lgq would increase by 2-3 dB on the 
average and by 4 dB when the ICTF operates at capacity. On the Peninsula 
and in South San Jose, the Leq would increase 1-2 dB on the average and by 
3 dB when the ICTF operates at capacity. Most people would not notice 
these changes in the average nighttime noise level. 

It can be anticipated that for every decibel increase in L^n above 60 dB two 
percent of the exposed population will be annoyed.^ In San Francisco, an 
additional six percent of the people exposed to the increased train noise 
may be annoyed and on the Peninsula and in South San Jose, four percent of 
exposed people may be annoyed. 

Since the character of the noise would not change with the project, those 
people who are not currently annoyed at the noise level would not be expected 
to be bothered by the increase in the number of trains and those people who 
are currently annoyed may be concerned about the increase in the number of 
trains, particularly the night trains. People who are awakened at night by 
the present trains may be awakened more often with the project. Those who 
are not awakened would not be expected to notice an increase in night train 
traffic. 



NOISE NOTES: : 

1. This section is based on the report prepared by Thomas S. Lillo of Char- 
les M. Salter Associates, Inc., Noise Analysis, San Francisco Container 
Terminal Modernization EIR, San Francisco, California, August 16, 1985, 
available for public review in the project file at the Department of 
City Planning, 450 McAllister Street. 

2. L(jn = an average sound level, based on human reaction to cumulative 
noise exposure over a 24-hour period, which takes into account the 



99 



IV. Impacts 



greater annoyance of nighttime noises. Noise between 10 PM and 7 AM is 
weighted 10 dBA higher than daytime noise. 

3. Lgq = the equivalent steady-state sound level which in a stated period 
of time would contain the same acoustic energy as the time-varying 
sound level during the same time period. 



Ai r Quality Impacts 

Project-related air emissions would primarily arise from project-related 
truck trips and new cargo-handling equipment. Construction would cause 
short term emissions, primarily of particulates. Increased trips by vari- 
ous modes of travel would increase emissions of carbon monoxide (CO), nitro- 
gen oxides (NOx) and possibly sulfur oxides (SOx). Nitrogen oxides and 
hydrocarbons (HC) are both chemical precursors of ozone. Motor vehicles 
emit more NOx ^^^^ HC, and the emissions from natural gas combustion for 
space- and water-heating in buildings consists primarily of NOx. demon- 
strated by the LIRAQ (Livermore Regional Air Quality) model regional ozone 
computer simulations conducted for the 1982 Bay Area Air Quality Plan, an 
increase in the future NOx emissions compared to HC emissions would lead to 
a decrease in ozone compared to present levels. This model has also shown 
that Bay Area ozone concentrations are expected to be within the federal 
standard in 1987, and thereafter. As future NOx emissions from cumulative 
development in San Francisco would exceed future HC emissions, this devel- 
opment would not lead to an increase in total Bay Area ozone concentra- 
tions. 

At the same time, total emissions of both NOx ^nd HC are expected to decrease 
in San Francisco. Total NOx emissions would decrease in San Francisco by 
about two percent from 1984 to 2000, but would increase in the Bay Area by 
about five percent from 1984 to 2000. It is possible that excess NOx emis- 

100 



IV. Impacts 



sions generated by cumulative development (including the SFCT) could in- 
crease ozone and/or nitrogenous oxidant concentrations further downwind, 
outside the Bay Area. In addition, NOx emissions generated by cumulative 
development (including the SFCT) throughout the Bay Area could increase 
acid rain further downwind, outside the Bay Area, though to a relatively 
small extent, due to the low magnitude of the cumulative increase and to 
dilution over time and distance. 

Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD) New Source Review, Regu- 
lation 2, Rule 2, applies to "all new and modified stationary sources which, 
after construction, emit more than 68 kg (150 lbs) per day of organic com- 
pounds, nitrogen oxide, sulfur oxides or particulate matter, or carbon mon- 
oxide in excess of 249 kg (550 lbs) per day..." If the SFCT project were 
to exceed the trigger levels, then project-related train and ship emissions 
would come under BAAQMD jurisdiction. 

The California legislature has mandated a biannual inspection and mainte- 
nance (I/M) program which applies to most cars and light trucks in Califor- 
nia. This program went into operation in March 1984. Vehicles covered by 
the legislation must undergo a check consisting of a visual inspection of 
the vehicles' emission control system, measurement of tailpipe emissions 
while the vehicle is idling and comparison of the measured emissions rates 
to the allowable limits for the appropriate year of manufacture and model 
of vehicle. Vehicles must have the required emission control equipment, and 
equipment must meet the specified standards for hydrocarbons and carbon 
monoxide. If required emissions control equipment is not present it must 
be installed. If all required equipment is in place but the vehicle's 
emissions exceed the standards, the owner must pay a maximum of $50 for 



101 



IV. Impacts 



service intended to result in compliance. 

An annual I/M program was evaluated in the 1982 Bay Area Air Quality Plan 
based on the 1979 source inventory. Based on predicted reduction in HC and 
CO of 25% in vehicles covered, a reduction in total motor vehicle-generated 
CO of about 18% would be expected. The reduction in total regional CO 
emissions would be about 16%. The reduction in motor vehicle-generated HC 
would be about 17%; the reduction in total regional HC emissions would be 
about 6%. It can be seen from this data that the I/M program is expected 
to result in reductions in HC and CO emissions. 

As CO concentrations in San Francisco are almost entirely due to motor 
vehicles, future CO levels are predicted to be lower than they would be 
without an I/M program. The I/M program will affect the background air pol- 
lution level in the project area but would not affect project emissions, 
since few project-related trips would be made in vehicles affected by the 
I/M program. 

The linear roll-back model used to estimate CO emissions for cumulative 
Downtown development in the Downtown Plan EIR (DTP EIR) is not appropriate 
for use in estimating port-related emissions, because the model assumes 
that the cumulative effect of a series of individual projects will average 
out to a linear increase and assumes a mix of vehicles representing the 
average mix of vehicles on city streets. Although the SECT improvements 
would not all be implemented at once, they would be small in number and 
would tend to result in a non-linear increase in diesel emissions. The 
model assumes 2% heavy duty diesel vehicles and its results are dominated 
by the 86% light duty automobile component, ^ while the SECT has 65% heavy 
duty diesel trucks. 

102 



IV. Impacts 



In order to estimate project contribution to air pollution in 1995, truck 
emissions have been estimated using emissions factors developed from the 
California Air Resources Board's EMFAC6D emissions analysis program, see 
Table 32, page 104. 

Emissions of total suspended particulates (TSP) resulting from construction 
and from truck trips generated by the project and cumulative development 
would increase TSP concentrations, which could increase the frequency of 
TSP standard violations in San Francisco, with concomitant health effects 
and reduced visibility. ^ Expansion of SECT cargo throughput would have pro- 
portionately more impact on particulates than other San Francisco projects 
typically do, because the diesel engines in large trucks and container 
handling equipment generally emit more particulates than automobile (gaso- 
line) engines do. 

The truck trips associated with the project would result in the air pollu- 
tant emissions shown in Table 32, page 104. Phases I and II together would 
contribute annual particulate emissions of 138 tons distributed over the 
routes taken by the trucks. 

Transtainers and other di esel -powered equipment would be used to move con- 
tainers to and from backland storage and on and off rail cars. There are no 
transtainers currently in use at the SECT, Phase I development would 
result in use of two to five transtainers at the North Terminal and Phase 
II would involve addition of four transtainers at the South Terminal. The 
largest of the existing container movers are called port packers. There 
are currently 21 port packers at the North Terminal^ and 16 at the South 
Termi nal 



103 



IV. Impacts 



Table 32. Emissions from Heavy Duty Truck Trips Associated with 
Phase I and Phase II SFCT Improvements (in tons per year)l»2 



1985 1995 1995 1995 1995 Emissions 

Existing Base Project Project Base With Rate (g/mi) 

Without Phase I Phase II Phases Ave. speed 
Project I & II 25 mph 



particulates 91.6 91.6 56.5 81.8 221.4 8.56 

hydrocarbons 25.1 2.35 

24.3 15.0 21.7 58.7 2.27^ 

nitrogen 142.3 13.3 

oxides 

114.1 70.4 101.9 275.8 10.663 

sulfur oxides 30.0 30.0 18.5 26.8 72.4 2.8 

carbon 91.4 8.54 

monoxide 

91.0 56.1 81.2 219.9 8.503 



1. Assumptions: existing 1985 VMT (vehicle miles travelled) = 9,707,000 

1995 base VMT without project = 9,707,000 
1995 Phase I VMT = 5,990,000 
1995 Phase II VMT = 8,671,000 
1995 base + Phases I & II VMT = 23,467,000 
average trip length = 42 miles 

2. California Air Resources Board, EMFAC6D Emissions Analysis Computer 
Program Runs supplied by Michael Kim of the Bay Area Air Quality Manag- 
ment District, August 10, 1985. 

3. Emissions rates for hydrocarbons, nitrogen oxides, and carbon monoxide 
change between 1985 and 1995 because of implementation of federal air 
quality standards. 

Source: Richard Pollack, Ph.D., Environmental Impact Planning Corp., and 
Bendix Envi ronmeYital Research, Inc. 



104 



IV. Impacts 



Transtainers and other container-handling equipment (other than the cranes) 
have 215 hp diese! engines. They are not used continuously. Use varies 
from day to day and hour to hour, depending on whether a vessel is berthed 
or a train is in the ICTF. The cumulative number of hours per day of use 
of existing and new transtainers and other diesel yard equipment would vary 
from zero to most of the equipment in use simultaneously, depending on the 
level of activity at the SFCT. The cumulative average emissions of new 
equipment would not exceed 149 lb/day of NOx (about 25% of project-related 
truck emissions), 69 lb/day of CO (about 15% of project-related truck 
emissions), and 6 lb/day of hydrocarbons (less than 5% of project-related 
truck emissions).^ As previously indicated, the trigger for BAAQMD review 
of such emissions is 150 lb/day of any one pollutant other than CO for which 
the trigger is 550 lb/day. The project would not trigger BAAQMD review. 

A 1979 MTC/BCDC report. Environmental Analyses for Potential Marine Terminal 
Sites, Working Paper No. 7 of the MTC/BCDC Port Planning Project, analyzed 
the potential environmental impacts of expanded port development at 64 Bay 
Area sites. ^ The North and South Terminal Areas received overall air qua- 
lity ratings that indicated that the SFCT would have relatively little en- 
vironmental impact.'^ The project area, and some other San Francisco sites, 
were the only sites in the study to receive the most favorable ventilation, 
vertical mixing and exposure of downwind receptors ratings of 5. Existing 
air quality, taking into account SOx, total particulates, CO, nitrogen 
dioxide, and oxidants, was rated 3.7. The highest rating, of 4.1, went to 
Oakland sites near the Oakland/San Francisco Bay Bridge and along the Oak- 
land Inner Harbor. The lowest rating, 2.4, went to Redwood City sites. 



105 



IV. Impacts 



The SFCT overall air quality rating was 4.61. No site received a higher 
overall air quality rating; some other San Francisco sites received the 
same rating. These ratings mean that development of expanded maritime 
activity at the SFCT was predicted to have less air quality impact than a 
similar expansion of maritime activity at any other Bay Area site. 

The Final EIR for the San Francisco Bay Area Seaport Plan states that "The 
air quality problems related to the marine terminal development anticipated 
in the Seaport Plan are not significant enough to warrant separate mitigation 
measures in their impact report or the Plan,..ABAG, BAAQMD, and MTC are cur- 
rently updating the applicable State Implementation Plan (SIP) revision as 
required by the Clean Air Act. This revision would tend to minimize any 
potential air quality problems associated with marine terminal develop- 
ment. 

A comparison of train air pollutant contributions in the Bay Area in 1979 and 
as predicted for the year 2000 is given in Table 33, page 107. This Table 
shows that the main contribution of rail to Bay Area pollution is NG^. All 
rail activity in the area contributed 0.7% of NO^ emissions to the air 
basin in 1979 and the rail contribution is predicted to rise to 0.9X in 2000, 
taking into consideration projected cargo throughput increases, including a 
San Francisco increase. As indicated in Appendix A, pages A-28 and A-29, 
rail is a relatively more fuel efficient transportation mode than truck; 
it also results in less air pollution per cargo-mile than does truck trans- 
port. The ICTF would tend to shift trips to and from the- SFCT from truck 
to the less polluting rail mode. ^ 

Table 33 also indicates that the main contribution of ships to air pollution 
is sulfur dioxide, increasing from 4.9% to 5.1% in 2000. The sulfur dioxide 

106 



IV. Impacts 



Table 33. Train and Ship Contributions to Bay Area Air Pollution 

in 1979 and 2000 



Year/Transportation 
Mode 



Particu- 
lates 



ROG 



NOv 



S02 



CO 



1979 

steamships (cargo + 
passenger) + diesel motor 
ships (cargo + tugs) 

rail 



0.08% 
0.06% 



0.2% 
0.2% 



0.5% 
0.7% 



4.9% 
0.3% 



0.02% 
0.05% 



2000 

steamships (Cargo + 
passenger) + diesel motor 
ships (cargo + tugs) 

rail 



0.08% 
0.06% 



0.25% 
0.3% 



0.7% 
0.9% 



5.1% 
0.3% 



0.03% 
0.08% 



ROG = reactive organics 



SO2 = sulfur dioxide 



Source: 1982 Bay Area Air Quality Plan, ABAG/BAAQMD/MTC, 1982, Appendix E. 
and Bendix Environmental Research, Inc. 



comes mainly from the sulfur in the fuel used by steamships. The increase 
in ships that would come to the expanded ICTF would be within the projections 
made in evaluation of the environmental impacts of the San Francisco Bay 
Plan. 



The 1982 Bay Area Air Quality Plan contains strategies which consist prima- 
rily of HC and CO emission controls on stationary sources and motor vehi- 
cles, and transportation improvements, and are aimed at attaining the fed- 
eral ozone and CO standards. Emissions associated with the project, to- 



107 



IV. Impacts 



gether with cumulative downtown development under the Downtown Plan, are 
not projected by this EIR or the Downtown Plan EIR to increase ozone concen- 
trations and thus would not conflict with the objectives of the 1982 Bay 
Area Air Quality Plan regarding ozone. 



NOTES -- AIR QUALITY: 

1. ABAG/BAAQMD/MTC, Methodology for Projecting Future Carbon Monoxide 
Levels and Estimating Control Measure Effectiveness in the 1982 Plan, 
Air Quality Technical Memo 43, 1982, p. 20. 

2. State particulate standards were adopted in 1983 to concentrate on fine 
particulate matter which, through inhalation, has been demonstrated to 
have health implications. Until the State adopts a method for moni- 
toring fine particulate matter, it is not possible to determine what 
proportion o1^ TSP in San Francisco would be subject to review against 
the new standards, whether new standards would be violated, or what the 
health implications would be. 

3. Ian Back, California Stevedore & Ballast Co., telephone conversation of 
September 11, 1985. 

4. Peter Klestoff, Stevedoring Services of America, telephone conversation 
of September 11, 1985. 

5. Gilbert G. Bendix, P.E., memorandum of August 28, 1985, available for 
public review in the project file at the Department of City Planning, 
450 McAllister Street. 

6. TERA Advanced Services Corp. for MTC/BCDC, pp. 7-165 to 7-170. 

7. Ibid, p. 49. 

8. FEIR, San Francisco Bay Area Seaport Plan and the Seaport Plan Amendments 
to the Regional Transportation Plan, Amendment No. 7 to the Metropolitan 
Transportation Commission Environmental Impact Report for the Regional 
Transportation Plan, certified June 26, 1974, ABAG, October 1982, Vol.1, 
p. 48. 



Biological Impacts^ 



Herring use the Bay in the vicinity of .the project and may spawn there. 
From late November to mid-March the eggs, which are attached to submerged 
objects, are vulnerable to siltation, which may result from dredging, fill- 



108 



IV. Impacts 



removal or fill activities. The California Department of Fish and Game is 
concerned that dredging may have a negative impact on reproductive success 
of herring. 2 The only dredging and fill removal that would occur would be 
in Islais Creek, where routine maintenance dredging already occurs, and it 
is unlikely that spawning occurs in the Creek. Most other fish and other 
swimming organisms which would be free to move out of the disturbed area 
would undergo minor effects. 

Increased public use of Pier 98 would disturb gulls, terns, cormorants and 
the shorebirds that feed and roost along the shore of Pier 98, particularly 
beside the mudflat and old pier along the south shore of the Pier.^ No 
impacts on threatened or endangered species which may use the environs of 
Pier 98 are expected. Two threatened or endangered species use the general 
area. Brown pelicans appear seasonally and Least Terns may visit occasion- 
ally during migration. Both would be found primarily over offshore waters 
of the Bay, foraging for fish, and neither is known to nest in the area. 
No other threatened or endangered species are probable in the project area. 
The new piles at the North Terminal would provide a habitat for various 
invertebrates which, together with their associated small organisms, provide 
a food source for fish and other free-swimming animals. 

Dredging and fill -removal connected with construction of the Islais Creek 
bridge and Phase II berths would result in various short-term impacts to 
marine habitat. These impacts would result from increased water turbidity, 
decreased dissolved oxygen levels, increased levels of suspended nutrients 
and sediment-borne toxic materials, as well as direct destruction of some 
bottom-dwelling organisms. Similar off-site effects could be anticipated 
at the location of dredged material disposal. Such impacts would occur for 



109 



IV. Impacts 



a few days following the construction activity, and populations of bottom- 
dwelling organisms could be expected to recolonize after disturbance. 

An Army Corps of Engineers permit would be obtained for removal of fill 
from the south side of Islais Creek during Phase II. This permit would 
require tests of the fill material to be removed to determine possible im- 
pacts on water quality and an appropriate disposal site. Permits from the 
Army Corps of Engineers and BCOC would be obtained for disposal of the fill 
if the fill were to be disposed of in the Bay or within BCDC jurisdiction. 
Potential impacts on Bay organisms would be considered during permit evalua- 
tion. A small amount of sediment habitat in Islais Creek may be removed as 
a result of the placement of footings for the new i nterterminal bridge. 

NOTES--BIOLOGICAL IMPACTS: 

1. This section is based on a report by the Biological Consultant to the EIR 
Consultant, Booker Holton Associates, "Required Permits and Approvals 
and Biological Setting, Impacts, and Mitigations," July 17, 1985, avail- 
able for public review in the project file at the Department of City 
Planning, 450 McAllister Street. 

2. T. Wooster, July 15, 1985, and P. Swartzell, July 16, 1985, telephone 
conversations with Biological Consultant. 

3. Field observations by Holton Associates, July 9, 1985. 



Publ i c Open Space 

As part of the Phase I development, the Port proposes to develop about 11 
acres of public open space at Pier 98.1 p-jgp 93 f-j-|i placed pursuant to 
a 1970 BCDC permit for a container terminal at Pier 98 and for Southern 
Crossing bridge approach ramps. In 197L, the Regional Water Quality Con- 
trol Board (RWQCB) expressed concern about discharges from Pier 98 causing 
discoloration, lowered dissolved oxygen levels, pH effects, hydrogen sul- 

• 

110 



VI. Impacts 

fide odor (odor of rotten eggs), and increased sulfide levels, as well as 
about the apparent incorporation of some Class II materials^ in the fill. 



UOa 



IV. Impacts 



including paper, rags, cans and rugs. The Port was required to undertake a 
self-monitoring program which continues at the present time. 

The problems abated in 1972 due to natural settlement of the fill and to 
remedial measures undertaken by the Port.-^ In 1974 the Port complied with 
a request from the Regional Water Quality Control Board to provide a soil 
blanket over the fill on Pier 98. This blanket has controlled leaching 
from the fill .4 

In 1976, BCDC told the Port that part of the Pier 98 fill was unauthorized 
and requested the Port to stop filling. The Port responded that it had 
stopped filling and stated that it had found construction of the previously 
proposed Pier 98 uneconomical, in part because of the cancellation of plans 
for the Southern Crossing of the Bay, In 1978, the north side of the fill 
was protected from erosion by the placement of riprap.^ In 1979, the 
permit lapsed with 17.7 acres of the originally permitted 48 acres filled. 

In March of 1984, the Port's self-monitoring report to the RWQCB stated 
that there was no evidence of leaching, no odor, no sign of erosion, no 
water discoloration, grease, or other evidence of water pollution. People 
were observed fishing and birds were in the area at the time of moni- 
tori ng.^ 

The weight of the fill caused a mud wave to the south. As discussed on EIR 
pages 42 to 44, the shallow area created by this mud wave has developed 
into a marsh and tidal mudflat area which is well used by a variety of 
organisms. Port staff have not observed^ny recent evidence of settlement 
at Pier 98. ^ 

111 



IV. Impacts 



The surface of Pier 98 would be developed to encourage public use by persons 
wishing to observe the Bay and tidal mudflat area and/or wishing to fish. 
Mitigation measures to minimize the biological impacts of increased human 
use of the area are described on pages 128 to 129. 

It is possible that one or two acres of the fill may be removed as part of 
the resolution of the uncompleted permit; the matter remains to be discus- 
sed with BCDC as detailed plans for the area develop. 

As indicated in the next subsection (page 116), any removed fill material 
would be tested prior to disposal to insure appropriate disposal in accord 
with Army Corps of Engineers' requirements. 

Implementation of the proposed project would not affect sites recommended 
for improved or new public access in the revised Recreation & Open Space 
Element of the Master Plan now under public review and expected to be 
adopted in 1986. A continuous shoreline trail is under discussion by City 
and other agencies. In the vicinity of the ICTF, it would run inland on 
City sidewalks and private property owned by railroads and PG^^iE, not on 
Port-owned property. This possibility would not be affected by further 
development of the SECT. 



NOTES — PUBLIC OPEN SPACE: 

1. The area varies from about 9 acres at high tide to about 14 acres at 
1 ow t ide. 

2. Class II wastes contain chemically or biologically decomposable material 
which are not capable of significantly impairing the quality of usable 
waters. Examples include garbage, rubbish, wood and metal demolition 
materials, dead animals, and rubber scrap. 

3. Port of San Francisco, letter to Regional Water Quality Control Board 
of April 8, 1974. 



112 



IV. Impacts 



4. C. L. Vickers, Jr., Chief Engineer, letter to Regional Water Quality Con- 
trol Board of October 14, 1975. 

5. Riprap is irregularly placed rock or pieces of boulders used to stabilize 
banks against erosion by moving water. 

6. Monitoring report available for public review in the project file at the 
Department of City Planning, 450 McAllister Street. 

7. Velio Kiisk, Chief Harbor Engineer, letter of August 13, 1985, available 
for public review as in 6. 



112a 



IV. Impacts 

Bay Fill and Fill Re moval 
Intertermi nal Bridge 

Because anything that covers the surface of the Bay constitutes fill under 
the law, the pile-supported i ntertermi nal bridge would be 0.5 to 1.1 acres 
# of new fill. This fill would be more than off-set by Port fill credits 
from past removal of about three acres on the southern waterfront (0.8 acre 
at the Mission Creek Marina, 1.9 acres at Pier 88, and 0.5 acre in the Pier 
64/66 area) and potential future removal of about five acres at pier 70 
and about eight acres at Pier 64 north of the SFCT. BCDC has indicated 
that these pier-removal credits may be used to offset other pile-supported 
fill, such as the proposed Islais Creek bridge. 

Removal of Fill from Islais Creek 

Creation of two new berths on the south side of Islais Creek would require 
the removal of about 0.89 acres (50,000 cubic yards) of existing fill on 
the south side of the channel. Most of the fill that overlies the bay mud 
beneath Pier 94 has been placed since 1961. The composition of this fill 
varies from sand and gravel, placed during construction of Pier 94 to sup- 
port the piles, to a debris dike constructed in the early 1960s to contain 
the dredged spoils from the Army Street Terminal Project.^ 

The soil conditions in the area where the two new berths would be developed 
in Phase II are shown in Figure 16, page 114. On the west side of the area 
the material to be removed would be sand and debris fill over bay mud, and 
on the east side it would be debris over bay mud. A cross section through 
the eastern area is shown in Figure 17, page 115. The fill would be re- 
moved down to elevation -40 ft. to match the existing channel depth. If 
the cross section in Figure 17 is typical, most of the material to be re- 



113 



IV. Impacts 

moved would be bay mud. 

Construction debris tends to settle with time and may contain materials 
which decompose over time to form products which may leach and pollute the 
adjacent water. Removal of the debris portion of the fill would remove 
part of a potential leaching problem and part of an area subject to subsi- 



113a 



IV. Impacts 



Figure 16. South Terminal Soil Conditions in 
Area of New Terminals for Phase II 




Legend 

^///, Soi I and Debris Fi lis Over Bay Mud 

1 



Landslide Area 



J;v;' Debris Fill Over Dredge Spoils 



NORTH 



Debris Dike Over Bay Mud 



Source: Bendix Environmental Research, Inc. 

(Adapted from Geotechnical Investigation, Pier 94. 1983, Plate 4.) 



114 



IV. Impacts 




115 



IV. Impacts 



dencG. Testing of the fill surface exposed by fill removal would be per- 
formed to determine whether there was any material of concern with respect 
to potential water pollution. See Mitigation Chapter, page 130, for fur- 
ther discussion. In compliance with Army Corps of Engineers' requirements, 
the fill to be removed would be tested to determine whether it contained 
any toxic materials before a dredge spoils disposal site was approved. 

Pier 98 Fill 

The final status of existing Pier 98 fill will be determined by BCDC. Var- 
ious portions of the fill have been placed pursuant to different permits. 
Other provisions of one of these permits have not been implemented since the 
Southern Crossing and a marine terminal at Pier 98 have not been built. The 
status of the "fill" created by the mud wave is unclear. Resolution of the 
legal status of Pier 98 fill may involve removal of some of the fill if 
this can be done without exposing fill that could pollute the Bay. 

NOTES — FILL REMOVAL: 

1. Geotechnical Consultants, Inc., Geotechnical Investigation, Pier 94, 
San Francisco, California, December 1983, p. 9, available for public 
review in the project file at the Department of City Planning, 450 
McAllister Street. 



Potential Hazards of Methane from Decomposing Fill 

According to a geotechnical report, the fill under Pier 80 "is contaminated 
in some areas with rubble and debris. The western portion of the site was 
originally used as a disposal area but the extent of this original dump was 
not determined during our studies."^ The debris under Pier 94 consists of 
wood, wood with nails in it, plants, brick, plastic, glass, rock and "miscel- 
laneous trash. "^ The more recent bay mud is often reported as having organic 



116 



IV. Impacts 



material in it. This material in part originates from butchertown^ wastes 
which "went out with the tide."^ 

When such materials are present in fill, there is a potential for the 
growth of bacteria that form methane as they decompose the organic mate- 
rials in the fill. Methane, the dominant component of natural gas, is 
highly flammable, and may constitute a fire and explosion hazard at land- 
fills. 

Methane production from a given fill operation begins in six months to three 
years after placement and goes on for up to hundreds of years depending on 
water content, oxygen level (methane-producing bacteria live in the absence 
of oxygen), temperature, composition of the fill, and other factors. Me- 
thane production is stimulated by the presence of a high percentage of 
biodegradable materials such as wood.^ Methane is lighter than air and 
tends to rise. Sometimes it travels considerable distances laterally, 
particularly when there are voids created by large items in the fill. In 
concentrations between 5 and 15 percent by volume in air, methane is flam- 
mable. 

Surface methane measurements indicate that methane is present at the South 
Terminal in the range of 25 to 11,000 parts per million (0.025 to 1.1%), 
which is below the flammable range. ^ Since methane can travel unpredict- 
ably through fill, it could be possible for flammable concentrations of 
methane to be trapped under impervious surfaces constructed on the fill. 
Mitigation measures to insure dissipation of methane as it reaches the 
surface are discussed on page 131. 



117 



IV. Impacts 



Methane, the main constituent of natural gas, is a colorless, odorless gas 
with a toxicity rating of "1" which means that it is a chemical that can 
enter the body by inhalation or skin contact and "produce only slight toxic 
effects, regardless of the amount absorbed or the extent of the exposure."'' 



METHANE NOTES: 

1. Dames and Moore, Geotechnical Investigation, Army Street Terminal (Pier 

80), San Francisco, California, for the San Francisco Port Commission, j 
1982, available for public review in the project file at the Department ' 
of City Planning, 450 McAllister Street. 

! 

2. Geotechnial Consultants, Inc., Geotechnical Investigation, Pier 94, San 
Francisco, December 1983, p. 10, available for public review as in 1. 

3. The area south of Islais Creek and east of Third Street once held many 
slaughterhouses, hence it is sometimes referred to as "butchertown. " j 

4. Roger Olmstead, Nancy Olmstead, Allen Pastron and Jack Prichett, "Rincon \ 
de las Salinas y Potrero Viejo — The Vanished Corner", Report Prepared i 
for the San Francisco Clean Water Program, 1981, p. 124. 

5. Emcon Associates and Gas Recovery Systems, Inc., Landfill Gas, An Analy- 
sis of Options, prepared for the New York State Energy Office, 1981, p. 

3, available for public review as in 1. I 

■I 

6. Flay, Robert B., Manager, Organics Department, Environmental Research 
Group, Inc., Report #6104, August 22, 1985, available for public re- 
view at the Department of City Planning, 450 McAllister Street. 

i 

7. Sax, N. Irving, "Dangerous Properties of Industrial Materials," Sixth j 
Edition, Van Nostrand, 1984, pp. 1 and 1763. One on a scale of to 4, ! 
in which is no toxicity. i 

I 

I 

Business Displacement | 



Phase II development of container berths on the South side of Islais Creek 
would displace existing businesses (see Figure 9, page 21, for locations). 
Since Phase II implementation is not expected to take place until five to 
ten years from now, a representative of each firm was asked whether they 



118 



IV. Impacts 



expected to be at their present location in five to ten years and whether 
they would anticipate any difficulty in relocation. 

The Recycling Center (five employees) is on a month-to-month lease and does 
not regard the site as permanent. If they were still there at the time of 
implementation of Phase II they would look for a "light industrial space. 

Tidewater Sand and Gravel is on a month-to-month lease but has no plans to 
move within the next five to ten years. This firm requires access to a 
berth that can accommodate deep draft vessels and a large backland area and 
feels that it would be difficult to relocate. The firm has three full time 
and one part time employee.^ 

The fishmeal plant operated by California Stevedore & Ballast is on a month- 
to-month lease but has no plans to move within the next five to ten years. 
Improvements at the site would have to be moved if the facility were to 
relocate. There are three permanent employees and up to 35 temporary 
employees when a vessel is being loaded or unloaded.-^ 

# The Baker Commodities tallow works has no plans to move within the next five 
to ten years. Relocation would be possible assuming adequate financial re- 
sources. The plant has three employees.^ Royal Tallow operates at the 
same site on a sublease from Baker Commodities. Royal Tallow, a 100-year- 
old San Francisco firm, is a division of Darling-Delaware, Inc., and is head- 
quarters of West Coast operations for this national firm. Royal Tallow has 
about 50 permanent employees and anticipates remaining in -this location as 
long as Baker Commodities operates there. Royal Tallow may have difficulty 
in relocation because of the cost of sites with appropriate truck and mari- 
time shipping access and possible public concern about the impacts of a 

119 



IV. Impacts 



rendering operati on,^^" 

Continental Grain has a lease until 2003 and has asked the Port to terminate 
the lease. ^ This firm has six permanent employees and up to 16 temporary 
employees when loading or unloading a vessel.^ 

The Port is willing to relocate displaced month-to-month tenants elsewhere 
on Port property, if the tenants can meet the market lease rates, but the 



119a 



IV. Impacts 



Port indicates that it cannot subsidize tenants who cannot pay market 
rates. ^ 

Assuming no change in current employment levels, displacement of these five 
businesses would displace 20 permanent, 51 temporary and 1 part-time jobs, 
of which three full-time and one part-time jobs could be lost due to failure 
to find a satisfactory relocation site. The Phase II development would 
create about 40 new permanent jobs and about 55 temporary jobs, for a net 
gain of about 20 permanent jobs and would cause little change in the number 
of 1 ongshoremens ' jobs. The number of days per year of work for longshoremen 
would be greater in Phase II than at present because there would be a larger 
number of larger vessels to load and unload. 

NOTES — BUSINESS DISPLACEMENT: 

1. Jane Olsen, telephone conversation of October 10, 1985. 

2. Ms. E, P. Seaborn, telephone conversation of October 9, 1985. 

3. Tom Kohler, telephone conversation of October 9, 1985, 

# 4. Gene Riddle, Baker Commodities, telephone conversation of October 10, 

1985. 

# 4a. Gary Young, Royal Tallow, telephone conversation of December 20, 1985. 

5. Jack Conrad, Port of San Francisco, telephone conversation of October 
11, 1985. 

6. Don Strenik, telephone conversation of October 9, 1985. 
Growth Inducing Impacts 

The proposed project would be within the parameters considered in the devel- 
opment of the Seaport Plan. The Final EIR for the Seaport Plan, in evalua- 
tion of Growth Inducing Impacts, stated that: "...the Seaport Plan is in- 
tended to enhance regional economic activity by providing for orderly port 
development, protecting the environment, making efficient use of resources 

120 



IV. Impacts 



and coordinating development activities. The planning process leading to 
the recommended Plan assumes that existing facilities will not be suffi- 
cient to accommodate anticipated increases in dry cargo. The proposed pro- 
ject does not induce growth. The project recommends actions needed to 
accommodate projected growth in port activity. This projection is based on 
assumptions about the growth in international and domestic waterborne trade 
on the West Coast and through the Bay Area."^ The same statement is appli- 
cable to the proposed San Francisco project. 

NOTE GROWTH INDUCTION: 

1. "FEIR for the San Francisco Bay Area Seaport Plan and the Seaport Plan 
Amendments to the Regional Transportation Plan, Amendment No, 7 to the 
MTC EIR for the Regional Transportation Plan, "certified June 26, 1974, 
Vol. I. Environmental Impacts, ABAG, 1982. 



121 



V. Mitigation Measures 



i 



CHAPTER V. MITIGATION MEASURES 



In the course of project planning and design, measures have been identified! 

that would reduce or eliminate potential environmental impacts of the pro-J 

I 

posed project. Some of these measures have been or would be adopted by the 



Port, some may be implemented by other public agencies, some are undergoing 
evaluation by the Port, and the Port has decided not to implement some of 



them. Federal and state agencies could require that some or all of the 
measures within the Port's powers, or variations thereof, be included a^ 



conditions of project approval. Mitigation measures included as part of 

i 

the project and presented in the Initial Study (Appendix A) are included 



below. 



Each mitigation measure and its status is discussed below. Where a measure 



has not been included in the project, the reasons for this are stated,, 



Transportation Mitigation 



Measures Included i n the Proposed Project 



1. Development of the ICTF would shift cargo movement from trucks to rail.i 



This would decrease the number of trucks required to handle a given cargoj 
throughput and decrease traffic on feeder streets and adjacent freeways.; 



2. The Port would ask MUNI to provide schedules for relevant bus lines toi 
the operators of the North and South Terminals for distribution to thei rj 
employees once a year in order -to encourage transit use by Terminal em-i 



pToyees. 



I 

122 ^ 



V. Mitigation Measures 



3. The Port would inform Terminal operators about the Metropolitan Trans- 
portation Commission Regional Transit Connection service as an efficient 
means of obtaining schedules, maps, tickets and passes for all Bay Area 
transit systems to facilitate Terminal employee use of public transit. 

4. The Port would provide Terminal operators with information about the 
role of RIDES for Bay Area Commuters in provision of car and van pool ser- 
vices to encourage car and van pooling of Terminal operators' employees. 

5. The Port would publicize California Stevedore and Ballast Company's use 
of a van to pick up and deliver employees at BART stations through an article 
in Wharf side to encourage expansion of such van service. 

6. The Port would request the SFCT stevedore companies to inform truck 
drivers of the Third Street truck prohibition (see Figure 13, page 47, for 
location) and to request drivers to use the Pennsylvania Street on-ramp and 
the Army Street off-ramp for access to the south. When the Evans Avenue 
ramps are completed, instructions for South Terminal drivers would be re- 
vised appropriately. 

7. The Port would incorporate enough on-site parking at the North Terminal 
to prevent new employee parking demand from affecting adjacent City streets. 

8. The Port would investigate possible computerization of paperwork at the 
scale house at the North Terminal as a means of speeding up truck processing 
and decreasing queuing. This investigation is under way and will be imple- 
mented when an effective and economically feasible method is developed. 

9. The Port would convert one or two outbound lanes at the North Terminal 
scale house to inbound lanes to reduce queuing. 



123 



V, Mitigation Measures 



The Port would request the Director of Public Works to implement measures 
ten through seventeen to increase operational efficiency and hence reduce 
delay to users of City streets.-^ 

10. In order to improve the flow of traffic north on Third Street from the 
Army Street intersection, prohibit parking on both sides of Third Street 
north and south of Army Street and rechannel the intersection to allow three 
through lanes and one left turn traffic lane in each direction. Provide an 
appropriate left turn signal phase for northbound Third Street left turns. 
The Department of Public Works, Traffic Engineering Division, has initiated 
procedures to obtain approval for this measure. The measure will be dis- 
cussed by the Interdepartmental Staff Committee on Traffic and Transporta- 
tion, a public hearing will be held, and the Board of Supervisors will be 
asked to approve the measure. This will occur whether the proposed project 
is implemented or not. 

The Department of Public Works is taking the steps legally required to ini- 
tiate measures 11, 12 and 13. 

11. Restripe the Third Street left turn at Cargo Way to provide two lanes 
rather than the present single lane to facilitate left turns and to prevent 
left turners from backing up Third Street traffic. 

12. Improve signing at the 1-280 Pennsylvania Street on-ramp for northbound 
Thi rd Street traffic. 

13. Provide guide lines for Evans Avenue traffic at Third Street, since 
street capacity is optimized by defined' lanes. 

Measures 14 to 17 would be implemented administratively by the Department 

124 



V. Mitigation Measures 



of Public Works when they feel that traffic conditions warrant such changes. 

14. Retime the signals on Third Street at Army Street, Cargo Way and Evans 
Avenue to better reflect current and future traffic demands. 

15. Restripe Army Street near the entrance to the North Terminal to shift 
the two queueing lanes on Army Street northward two or three feet to allow 
for provision of an access lane for businesses on the south side of this 
block of Army Street to relieve conflicts between trucks going to the North 
Terminal and other traffic. 

16. Post additional signs to notify drivers of the prohibition against 
large through trucks on Third Street and to indicate alternate truck routes. 

17. When the new Evans Avenue freeway on-ramps are opened, additional signs 
would be posted on Third Street at Evans Avenue warning southbound truckers 
of the prohibition against trucks and indicating Evans Avenue to 1-80 as 
the truck route to the south. 

Measures Under Consi derati on 

1. A decision to operate longer trains in and out of the ICTF only at 
night would decrease train interference with street traffic between the 
ICTF and the Brisbane train yard, where the unit trains would be made up. 
This would not decrease potential delay to emergency vehicles and would 
increase night train noise between the ICTF and the Brisbane train yard. 
The operational, environmental, and economic effects of different train 
schedules are being evaluated by Port staff and consultants. A decision 
would be made by the Port Director before inauguration of expanded ICTF 
service in 1987. 



125 



V. Mitigation Measures 



2. The Port would consider restricting on-street parking on Port property 
along Army Street to improve traffic flow to the entrance to the North 
Terminal. This measure would probably be opposed by Port neighbors on Army 
Street and would have to be discussed with them. 

3. The Port would consider a program to coordinate shipping schedules 
among railroads, steamship companies, shippers, trucking companies and 
stevedores so as to spread goods movement over a wider period of time and 
decrease peak congestion periods and conflicts with commuter traffic. Some 
of the peaks in vessel arrivals are due to factors involved in transpacific 
shipping schedules, and it is unlikely that the Port would be able to in- 
fluence these schedules. 

4. The Port would consider requesting the San Francisco Police Department 
to increase enforcement of the Third Street through truck prohibition. A 
decision would be made on the basis of priorities for Port requests to the 
Police Department. 

5. The Port would consider requiring Terminal operators to establish pro- 
visions for on-site sale of Muni passes. 

6. The Port would consider requiring Terminal operators to do a survey of 
the travel modes of permanent workers every two years. 

Measure That Coul d Be Implemented by the U.S. Customs Servi ce 

1. The Port would request an additional customs officer at the North Ter- 
minal scale house during peak periods to reduce queueing and speed up cargo 
handling. The Customs Service is currently anticipating a transition to 
computerized operation and it is unlikely that the current Pacific Coast- 

126 



V. Mitigation Measures 



wide shortage of customs staff will be alleviated in the near future. The 
Customs Service is unwilling to predict future San Francisco staffing. 2 
Since implementation of the entire project would occur over a period of ten 
years, or more, there is opportunity for changes in Customs Service policy 
before completion of the project. All Pacific Coast ports are working 
jointly to obtain such changes. Under these circumstances, it does not 
seem unreasonable to assume that, since the shortage of customs staff at 
Pacific Coast ports affects Federal revenues, some means of alleviating the 
current situation will be found. 

Train/ Emergency Vehicle Conflict Mitigation Measures 
Measures Included in the Proposed Project 

1. The Port would develop procedures in consultation with the Police and 
Fire Departments for notification of the 911 central emergency switchboard 
when trains would be scheduled which could block emergency service vehicles. 

2. When and if train movements become numerous enough for the emergency 
services to report repeated instances of emergency response delay to Port 
staff, the Port would explore the possibilities of realignment of the speed 
limiting curves in the Southern Pacific track west of Third Street so that 
an operating speed of 10 miles per hour could be achieved. This would 
halve the maximum twenty-five car train blockage time at an intersection 
from six minutes to three minutes. 

3. When and if built, the i ntertermi nal bridge would be available for emer- 
gency vehicle use if a train blocked their normal route. This route might 
take as long as other alternate routes or waiting for the train to move. 



127 



V. Mitigation Measures 



4. If the i ntertermi nal bridge is built, the Port would ensure that either 
there was a stormy weather location for the fireboat east of the new bridge 
satisfactory to the Fire Department or procedures for prompt emergency open- 
ing of the bridge for the fireboat if it is to be moored west of the new 
bridge. The potential for trains on the bridge preventing lifting of the 
bridge would be taken into consideration in planning. The Port would also 
develop procedures for the new bridge to be opened within the travel time 
of the fireboat from its normal mooring near Pier 24 in case of need for 
fireboat response at Islais Creek. 

5. Phase I development of the South Terminal would include a new roadway 
connection at the Pier 96 gate. A connection from Third Street north of 
Engine 25 to the road would be provided for the Fire Department to maintain 
a secondary access from this fire station to Cargo Way and points south. 

Air Pollution Mitigation Measures 

Measures Incorporated i n the Proposed Project 

1. Construction of the ICTF would shift container transport from trucks to 
less polluting rail transport. 

2. Mitigation measures designed to improve the flow of traffic, described 
on pages 122 to 126, would decrease air pollution. 

3. The Port would require construction contractors to water exposed ground 
surfaces in the work area at least twice a day to reduce afrborne construc- 
tion dust by about 50% and reduce the pcobability of exceeding state and 
federal particulate standards. 

4. Use of electric instead of diesel cargo 'cranes at the North Terminal 

128 



V. Mitigation Measures 



would decrease air pollution in San Francisco and increase it elsewhere, 
possibly in portions of the air basin with worse air quality, because ap- 
proximately three times as much fuel would be burned to generate electri- 
city to run the cranes as would be burned to run the cranes directly from 
diesel engines. Use of diesel cranes could have triggered BAAQMD review. 

Biological Mitigation Measures 

Measures Incorporated i n the Proposed Project 

1. The marsh which has developed south of Pier 98 as a result of a mud 
wave caused by the weight of the adjacent fill would be preserved. 

2. No dredging is anticipated in areas where herring spawn. If it should 
prove necessary to do dredging which could result in siltation in a herring 
spawning area, impacts on spawning areas would be mitigated by timing con- 
struction to avoid the spawning period from late November to mid-March. 

3. The removal of fill on the south side of Islais Creek or possible dredg- 
ing to deepen the Islais Creek channel to 42 feet from the mouth to the 
Phase II berths would be done with equipment and techniques designed to 
minimize impacts on adjacent Bay water quality. 

4. Any landscaping on Pier 98 would employ native species common to Cali- 
fornia coastal scrub and to Sal i corni a marsh communities. 

5. The landscaping of the ICTF and any other SFCT landscaping which may be 
done would employ native species to the maximum extent feasible in order to 
preserve and enhance natural ecological associations of animals and plants. 

6. The access trail on Pier 98 would be routed away from its south shore, 



129 



V. Mitigation Measures 



down the middle of the fill area or along the north shore. This would pro- 
vide views of the marsh on trie south side while minimizing human activity 
impacts on the salt marsh and the water birds using the south shore. 

7. If the 1 ntertermi nal bridge should require footings in Islais Creek, 
these footings would be designed to have minimum impact on water circulation 
in Islais Creek and would be constructed by methods designed to minimize 
water turbidity (cloudiness). 

Measures Under Consi derati on 

1. The Port would consider dredging small tidal channels in the Salicornia 
marsh area on the south side of Pier 98 to improve tidal flushing of the 
area and, thus, habitat quality. The decision would be made by the Port 
Director on the basis of consultation with BCDC, the Regional Water Quality 
Control Board and the California Department of Fish and Game and of funding 
availability. 

Public Access 

Measures Incorporated i n the Proposed Project 

1. The trail on Pier 98 would be designed to be wheelchair accessible. 

2. A sign informing people about the availability of public access would 
be placed at the entrance to the public open space area at Pier 98. 

3. The Port would perform routine maintenance at the Pier 98 public area. 
Measure not Incorporated i n the Proposed Prcfject 

1. Public access would not be provided across the working piers at the 



130 



V. Mitigation Measures 



North and South Terminals, because this cannot be done safely in an area 
where cargo is being moved. 

Dredging and Fill Removal Mitigation 

Measures Incorporated i n the Proposed Project 

1. Biological Mitigation Measure 2 would mitigate the impacts of dredging 
and fill removal on water turbidity and composition. 

2. Before removal of the fill on the south side of Islais Creek or possible 
dredging to deepen Islais Creek to 42 feet for the berths on the south side 
of Islais Creek, the fill or bottom sediments would be sampled and tested to 
determine chemical composition and insure that they would meet the Army Corps 
of Engineers requirements for disposal at the dredge disposal site near 

# Alcatraz in San Francisco Bay. Disposal would be at the Alcatraz site or 
other site designated by the Corps as appropriate and determined by BCDC to 
be consistent with the Bay Plan. 

3. Should analysis indicate that any remaining fill surface exposed to Bay 
waters by fill removal had the potential to pollute the Bay, the fill would 
be sealed with an appropriate material to prevent leaching into the Bay. 
The Regional Water Quality Control Board and the BCDC would be consulted on 
appropriate procedures and materials and would have to issue permits. 

4. The 0.5 to 1.1 acres of fill for the i ntertermi nal bridge would be more 
than offset by existing Port fill credits. 

5. Before a decision is made about the status of the fill at Pier 98, 
cores would be made in the fill and analyzed to determine whether fill re- 
moval could release pollutants into Bay water. 

131 



V. Mitigation Measures 



6. Phase II would involve the removal of about 0.89 acres of existing fill 
from the south side of Islais Creek. 

Methane Hazard Mitigation 

Measures Incorporated i n the Proposed Project 

1. A survey of methane concentration, determined by probe sampling in holes 
in the fill, would be made at the North and South Terminals to determine the 
extent of methane generation in the fill and establish the probability of 
existence of flammable concentrations of methane. Available data do not 
indicate the presence of flammable methane levels but are insufficient to 
give an adequate level of certainty to this conclusion. 

2. All building foundations would be designed to prevent the accumulation 
of methane under the buildings. 

3. All utilities installed under fill would be designed with provisions, 
such as air vents in underground electrical conduits below switches, to 
prevent methane accumulation in the lines. 

Settlement Mitigation 

Measure Incorporated i n the Proposed Project 

1. The Port project would be constructed in accordance with recommendations 
of California-registered structural engineers and/or from geotechnical con- 
sultants pertaining to foundations, subsidence and earthquake safety. 



132 



V. Mitigation Measures 



Islais Creek Maritime Access 

Measures Incorporated i n the Proposed Project 

1. The i ntertermi nal bridge would be a draw-bridge so that existing marine 
traffic could continue to use Islais Creek. 

2. If construction of the i ntertermi nal bridge would interfere with deli- 
veries to the copra processing facility west of the existing Third Street 
Bridge, a temporary pipeline would be installed to provide for delivery to 
the facility during construction. This pipeline could become permanent. 

Historic Resources Mitigation 

Measure Incorporated in the Proposed Project 

1. Should evidence of cultural or historic artifacts of significance be 
found during project excavation, the Environmental Review Officer (ERO) and 
the President of the Landmarks Preservation Advisory Board would be notified 
immediately, and any excavation which could damage such artifacts would be 
halted. The project sponsor would select an archaeologist or other expert 
to help the Office of Environmental Review determine the significance of the 
find and whether feasible measures, including appropriate security measures, 
could be implemented to preserve or recover such artifacts. The ERO would 
then recommend specific mitigations measures, if necessary. 

Copies of reports prepared according to this mitigation measure would be sent 
to the California Archaeological Site Survey Office at Sonoma State Univer- 
sity. Excavation or construction that might damage the discovered cultural 
resources would be suspended for a maximum of four weeks (cumulatively for 

all instances that the ERO has required a delay in excavation or construc- 
tion) to permit inspection, recommendation and retrieval, if appropriate. 

133 



V. Mitigation Measures 



Sewage Mitigation 



Measure Included i n Proposed Project 

1. Construction at the North Terminal would be coordinated with Clean Water 
Program construction activities related to the sewer outfall passing under 
the Terminal to minimize construction disruption to Terminal activities and 
interference of either construction activity with the other. 

Measure Under Consi derati on 

1. The Port would consider installation of shoreside sewerage connection 
facilities at the SFCT for commercial vessels to insure landside disposal 
of sewage. Most of the vessels that call at the SFCT are foreign flag ves- 
sels and it is unclear whether the United States can require them to in- 
stall compatible fittings for sewage pumpout. The installation of such fa- 
cilities would cost about $50,000 per berth. ^ The Regional Water Quality 
Control Board has requested the Federal Government to regulate waste dis- 
charges from vessels under the jurisdiction of foreign nations and the Uni- 
ted States Government and has requested that BCDC require dockside sewers 
to receive wastes from all vessels.^ 

NOTES — MITIGATION MEASURES: 

1. A plan for this optimization has been developed by the Department of Pub- 
lic Works and is now going through the approval process. Scott Shoaf, 
DPW TRaffic Engineering, telephone conversation of September 24, 1985. 

2. Paul Andrews, District Director of the U. S. Customs Service, telephone 
conversation of October 8, 1985. 

3. Velio Kiisk, Port Engineer, Port of San Francisco, telephone conversa- 
tion of August 6, 1985. 

4. California Regional Water Quality Control Board, San Francisco Bay 
Region, Resolution No. 70-1, available for public review at the Depart- 
ment of City Planning, 450 McAllister Street. 



134 



VI. Significant Environmental Effects That Cannot Be Avoided 

VII. Alternatives 



CHAPTER VI. SIGNIFICANT ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS THAT CANNOT BE 
AVOIDED IF THE PROJECT IS IMPLEMENTED 



# This chapter is subject to final determination by the decision-making bodies 
as part of their approval processes. 

Potential triggering of BAAQMD New Source Review by air pollutants emitted 
by diesel cargo cranes have been mitigated by a Port decision to use elec- 
tric cranes. No other probable significant environmental impacts from the 
proposed project have been identified. 

Should any net fill be determined to be involved in the project, BCDC would 
consider this to be significant if not mitigated. 



CHAPTER VII. ALTERNATIVES 

Alternative 1. No Project 
Description 

Existing container handling facilities at the SECT would remain and no pub- 
lic access would be developed at Pier 98, 

Impacts 

Container cargo throughput at the SECT would increase at a slower rate than 
with the proposed project. There would be more truck traffic on City 



135 



VII. Alternatives 



streets, and nearby freeways would be at capacity for greater periods of time 
than with the proposed project. The freeways would be at capacity without 
this additional traffic. Fewer trains would carry containers from the ICTF, 
resulting in less train noise than with the proposed project. There would 
be less air pollution from cranes without the new 100 ft. cranes and more 
air emissions from trucks. The existing level of train/emergency vehicle 
conflict would increase less without the project than with it. No train 
movement notification procedure for the emergency services would be set up. 
No improved public open space would be provided at Pier 98. 

Reasons for Rejection 

Without the proposed project the SFCT would be less cost-effective and 
would be less attractive to shippers. The Port Commission has rejected 
this alternative because it would decrease future Port revenues. The public 
has supported the decision by a 1984 vote for bonds to finance most of 
Phase I development of the proposed project. 

Alternative 2: 2.5 Acre Parcel Purchase/Addition at the North Terminal 
Description 

A 2.5 acre parcel, lot 3 on the south (Army Street) side of Assessor's 
Block 4310, bounded on the east and south by existing Port property, would 
be acquired by the Port for use for a redesigned entrance to the North Ter- 
minal and additional queueing space, see Figure 18, page 137, for location. 
The cost of this parcel would be about 2.5 million dollars. 

Impacts 

This alternative would remove all queueing trucks from Army Street, provide 

136 



VII. Alternatives 



Figure 18. Location of Additional Parcel Considered in 
Alternative 2 




more queueing space before the entrance to the North Terminal than can be 
be provided in the proposed alternative, and provide more space for layout 
of an optimal entrance to the North Terminal. The current tenant of the 
site, F. J. Burns Draying, which handles non-port-related construction 
materials, would have to relocate. 

Cargo throughput under this alternative would be the same as for the pro- 
posed project, therefore, impacts unrelated to queuing and business reloca- 
tion would be the same as for the proposed project. 

Reasons for Rejection 

The Port does not have funds for acquisition of this parcel now but may 
choose to acquire i t at a later date. The decision would be made by the 
Port Commission on the basis of analysis of the effects of tentiinal rede- 

137 



VII. Alternatives 

sign on truck flow through and queueing at the entrance to the North Termi- 
nal after implementation of the proposed project. 

Alternative 3: A Fixed Bridge Over Islais Creek 

Descri pti on 

The Port originally planned to install a fixed i ntertermi nal bridge over 
Islais Creek. This bridge would be in the same Illinois Street alignment 
as proposed for the drawbridge. 

Impacts 

A fixed bridge would close Islais Creek to navigation west of the bridge. 
This would require relocation of the Fire Department manifold on the east 
side of Third Street just south of the existing Third Street Bridge, which 
permits emergency pumping of Bay water by the fireboat into the Fire Depart- 
ment's Auxiliary Water Supply System. Permanent alternative means of deli- 
very to the copra processing plant west of the existing Third Street Bridge 
on the north side of Islais Creek would have to be provided, as well as 
alternative provision for stormy weather mooring of the fireboat, tugs and 
other boats that use Islais Creek during inclement weather. Closing Islais 
Creek would save the San Francisco Department of Public Works about $300,000 
per year in drawbridge maintenance and operation costs for the existing 
Third Street Bridge. ■'■ A fixed bridge would eliminate the potential effect 
of trucks, port packers and trains delaying opening of the drawbridge. 

Reasons for Rejection ^ 

Initially the Port believed that the relatively higher cost of a drawbridge 
prohibited this option. After consultation with the Coast Guard, which 

138 



VII. Alternatives 



expressed a desire for maintenance of the existing navigability of Islais 
Creek, 2 consideration of the impacts of closing the western portion of 
Islais Creek to navigation, and further investigation of the relative costs 
of different types of bridges, Port staff decided to use a draw bridge. 



NOTES — ALTERNATIVES: 

1. Repair costs of $100,000 to $150,000 per year would be eliminated be- 
cause vessels would no longer run into bridge footings. Cost statement 
is based on a letter from Richard Cunningham, Superintendent, Bureau of 
Street & Sewer Repair, Department of Public Works, of March 28, 1985, 
available for public review in the project file at the Department of City 
Planning, 450 McAllister Street. 

2. Wayne Till, Chief of Bridge Section, U.S. Coast Guard, meeting of June 
11, 1985. 



139 



VIII. Comments and Responses 



CHAPTER VIII. SUMMARY OF COMMENTS AND RESPONSES 



This section contains summaries of comments on the Draft Environmental 
Impact Report (DEIR) for the proposed Container Terminal Modernization 
at the Port of San Francisco and responses to those comments. 

All substantive comments made at a public hearing before the City Planning 
Commission on November 21, 1985, have been reviewed and are presented herein 
by direct quotation. Written comments on the Draft EIR were received between 
October 18 and December 2, 1985. Where public hearing and letter comments 
were substantially the same, material was not repeated. Editing has elimi- 
nated repetitive and non-essential material only. 

Comments and responses are grouped by topics, which generally follow the 
order of material in the Draft EIR. Each group of comments is followed by 
its responses. Because the subject matter of a topic may overlap that of 
another topic, the reader may have to refer to more than one group of 
comments and responses to review all information on a topic. 

Some comments do not pertain to physical environmental issues but are 
responded to for the purpose of providing additional information. 

These comments and responses will be incorporated into the Final EIR as a 
separate chapter. Draft EIR text changes presented in the comments and 
responses chapter also will be incorporated into the Final EIR. 



140 



VIII. Comments and Responses 



LIST OF PUBLIC AGENCIES, ORGANIZATIONS AND PERSONS COMMENTING 



Raymond Bright, written comments of November 25, 1985. 

Roderick A. Chisolm, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, written comments of Novem- 
ber 21, 1985. 

Murray Cole, testimony at public hearing of November 21, 1985. 

Zach Cowan, San Francisco Chapter of the Greenbelt Congress, written comments 
of November 21, 1985. 

Jeff Georgevich, Environmental Review Officer, Metropolitan Transportation 
Commission, written comments of December 2, 1985. 

Barbara Heinrich, City of San Mateo, written comments of November 26, 1985. 

Peter Hess, Bay Area Air Quality Management District, written comments of 
December 2, 1985. 

Marcel la Jacobson, Save San Francisco Bay Association, written comments of 
November 24, 1985. 

Philip E. Kern, Senior Planner, Bay Conservation and Development Commission, 
written comments of December 3, 1985. 

Owen McGuigan, Chief of Police, City of San Carlos, written comments of No- 
vember 25, 1985. 

John Porter, testimony at public hearing of November 21, 1985. 

William F. Powers, Director, Community Development, City of Sunnyvale, writ- 
ten comments of October 31, 1985. 

Wallace J. Rothbart, District CEQA Coordinator, CalTrans, written comments 
of November 20, 1985. 

Gary W. Schmitz, Fire Chief, South County Fire Department, written comments 
of November 25, 1985. 

Gary E. Young, written comments of October 25, 1985. 



141 



VIII. Comments and Responses 



LIST OF TOPICS FOR COMMENTS AND RESPONSES 



Project Description 143 

Permits 143 

Setting 146 

Traffic Analysis 150 

Train Impacts, San Francisco 150 

Train Impacts, Peninsula 158 

Public Access 164 

Subsidence and Seismic Hazards 165 

Underground Fuel Tanks 168 

Bay Fill, Fill Removal and Dredging 172 

Future Impacts 181 

Mitigation Measures 181 

Alternatives 183 

Staff-Initiated Text Amendments 184 



142 



VIII. Comments and Responses 



PROJECT DESCRIPTION 
Comments : 

"Page 12 — 1st paragraph states that no new berths would be constructed. 

"The Association believes Berth Nl should be considered a new facility — 
not a rehabilitation project as the DEIR infers." (Marcella Jacobson, Save 
San Francisco Bay Association, written comments of November 24, 1985) 

Response: 

The MTC/BCDC Seaport Plan defines a marine terminal berth as follows: "A 
marine terminal berth includes a wharf and other marine terminal facilities 
necessary to support a single ship berth." (p. 45). Berth Nl meets this 
definition now, hence has not been considered a new berth. Because of the 
change in type of berth, this conversion may be considered a new berth for 
purposes of the need determination required by the Seaport Plan. BCDC would 
make this determination in consultation with staff of the Metropolitan 
Transportation Commission (MTC). 

Seaport Plan Marine Terminal Policy 9 states: "To use existing terminals 
fully and to lessen the cost and adverse environmental effects associated 
with development to meet the growth of waterborne cargoes: terminal opera- 
tors should, where economically feasible, increase terminal productivity." 
The proposed project would be in accord with this policy. 

PERMITS 
Comments : 

"The proposed construction project will require Department of the Arn\y 
Authorization under Section 10 of the River[sl and Harbor[sl Act of 1899 
and under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act. 



143 



VIII. Comments and Responses 



"Any impacts on wetlands, threatened or endangered species, other valuable 
fish and wildlife resources, or on cultural resources are among the impor- 
tant environmental considerations for all Corps permit applications. 

"We recommend that you include a section in your Draft EIR outlining the 
coordination procedures and approvals needed from the federal, state and 
local agencies. In addition, your project should be coordinated with the 
California State Historic Preservation Officer and the Advisory Council on 
Historic Preservation. (These agencies were neither mentioned in the main 
body of the report, included on the distribution list, nor included on the 
'Other Agencies and Persons Consulted' on page 141.)" (Roderick A. Chisolm, 
Army Corps of Engineers, written comments of November 21, 1985) 

"On page 25, the DEIR states that the Port will request BCDC to amend the 
Bay Plan. The discussion should be expanded to address the need to also 
amend the MTC/BCDC "Seaport Plan," and to address MTC's role in that process. 
A similar change is needed in page 61. 

"On page 60, the DEIR states that 'one of the Phase II berths would be a 
minor development subject to a determination of need.' A determination of 
minor versus major development status has not been made." (Jeff George- 
vich, MTC, written comments of December 2, 1985) 

"Seaport Plan is Part of MTC's Regional Transportation Plan. Although the 
DEIR addresses the relationship of the proposed project to the San Francisco 
Bay Area Seaport Plan and the need for a Seaport Plan amendment to carry 
out the project, it relates that plan only to the' Bay Commission permit and 
plan amendment processes. The Seaport Plan was, in fact, jointly developed 
by the Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC) and the Bay Commission. 

144 



VIII. Comments and Responses 



It is a part of MTC's Regional Transportation Plan, as well as of the Bay 
Plan, and both Commissions' Plans must be amended to implement a Seaport 
Plan change." (Philip E. Kern, BCDC, written comments of December 3, 1985) 

"The new port facilities may be subject to BAAQMD permit authority. We 
suggest that the Port of San Francisco contact our Permit Services Division 
...for information about permit regulations." (Peter Hess, Bay Area Air 
Quality Management District) 

Response : 

The DEIR indicated on p. 24, fl3, that the proposed project would require 
Department of the Army authorization under the Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899 
and §404 of the Clean Water Act. DEIR pp. 22-25 covered coordination and 
approvals needed from federal, state and local agencies. 

The DEIR was sent by the State Clearinghouse to the California Department 
of Parks and Recreation Office of Historic Preservation (this is why this 
agency is not on the distribution list) which did not comment on the DEIR. 
Reasons for focusing cultural issues out of the EIR were presented on DEIR 
pp. A-32 to A-34. 

As was indicated on DEIR p. 52, the Seaport Plan Plan was developed by MTC 
and BCDC, with the assistance of the Seaport Planning Advisory Committee. 

The following text has been substituted for the last sentence in the partial 
paragraph at the top of EIR p. 25: 

"The Port would request amendment of the Seaport Plan to delete the marine 
terminal designation of Pier 98. This request would be discussed by the 
Seaport Planning Advisory Committee and would be subject to approval by 



145 



VIII. Comments and Responses 



both the Metropolitan Transportation Commission and the Bay Conservation 
and Development Commission." 

The last sentence of the first, complete right-hand 11 on EIR p. 61 has been 
amended to read: "The Port would request BCDC and MTC to amend the Seaport 
Plan to delete the marine terminal designation of Pier 98." 

On EIR p. 60 the last sentence of the fourth, right-hand 11 has been re- 
worded to read: "One of the Phase II berths is expected to be a minor 
development (a formal determination would be made by BCDC and MTC based on 
the advice of the Seaport Planning Committee) and the other would be a 
major development subject to a determination of need." 

As indicated in the first complete paragraph on DEIR p. 25, the BAAQMD 
would make a determination of consistency with the State Implementation 
Plan and the Bay Area Air Quality Management Plan. As indicated on DEIR p. 
105, the project is not expected to need a BAAQMD permit because it would 
not result in emissions of more than 150 lb/day of any pollutant. Port 
staff will review calculations of estimated emissions with BAAQMD staff, as 
requested, when more detailed information is available about the equipment 
planned for the SECT modernization. 

SETTING 
Comments: 

"There i s . . .descri ption on Page 48, existing facilities in use — ... 
[Islais] creek channel and bridge — in which the area- west of the current 

Islais Creek Bridge is described, and our entire boat community down there 

is left out of the description. Up until three years ago we have been 

paying the Port Commission rent for the facility. At that time, their 

146 



VIII. Comments and Responses 



insurance companies informed them that they could no longer charge rent 
there because the facility was uninsurable. But we have a 40-year history 
in the area, and we are still there and we still have 11 boats in the area. 
Some of our boats are commercial fishing vessels and go in and out of the 
Islais Creek Bridge, and the rest of us Well, I have been living there 
for 12 years, and I have a boat and a raft in the water... 

"I would like as a representative of our waterfront community to ask that 
the existence of our community be acknowledged in this report since we are 
directly west of the pro ject .. .There is somebody living on a boat down 
there, and I am living in the area also." (John Porter, public hearing 
comments) 

"We sublease Port Authority property from Baker Commodities, and note that 
in your report this is overlooked. We employ 50 people at this location 
and have substantial capital investment in plant and equipment, thus your 
plans as presented have considerable impact on our Company." (Gary Young, 
Royal Tallow & Soap Co., written comments of October 25, 1985) 

"Page 31 — 1st paragraph states that Encinal Terminal is closing its opera- 
tion. 

"Is this a correct statement? If not, this section should accurately re- 
flect the situation." (Marcel la Jacobson, Save San Francisco Bay Associa- 
tion, written comments of November 24, 1985.) 

"Page 45, the last paragraph refers to the construction of 1-280 ramps on 
Evans Avenue. Although the information is correct, the State Transportation 
Improvement Program (STIP) identifies this project as 601A 280 with a loca- 



147 



VIII. Comments and Responses 



tion near Islais Creek." (Wallace J. Rothbart, CalTrans, written comments 
of November 20, 1985) 

Response: 

Until eight years ago, the Port charged dockage (fees for water use) for 
some private boats that were tied up at Pier 86, the Old Booth Fishery. At 
that time Port representatives and a Deputy City Attorney told the boat 
owners that Pier 86 was unsafe and asked them to leave. Land access to 
Pier 86 is over private property not under Port jurisdiction. There is 
some question as to the legality of the presence of any boats in this area 
now. The Port has not actively tried to remove these boats since, in the 
absence of any permits or Port dockage receipts and in light of safety 
warnings, the Port is not liable if anything should happen. 

The following text has been added at the bottom of EIR p. 39: 

"There is a small community of people with boats that uses the west end of 
Islais Creek, These include the fishing boats Erymione and the American 
(the latter in drydock, as of December 1985); the former fishing boat 
Expectation, which has not been out for several years, according to a local 
resident; a Monterey class boat planned to be rigged for fishing; an 
Owens class boat that has been used in the past for Bay sports fishing; 
the Pelican, sometimes used as a residence; the Able, a sailboat which 
used to be used for sailing lessons; a small boat used only for storage; 
and two rafts. At the time of field observation on December 15, 1985, 
cormorants were feeding on numerous small fish in the Creek." 

■ 

The following new footnote to the above II has been added to EIR p. 41: 



148 



VIII. Comments and Responses 



"9a. This description is based on a tour of the area with a local resident, 
John Porter, on December 15, 1985." 

The fourth complete on EIR p. 119 has been revised to read as follows: 

"The Baker Commodities tallow works has no plans to move within the next five 
to ten years. Relocation would be possible assuming adequate financial re- 
sources. The plant has three employees.^ Royal Tallow operates at the 
same site on a sublease from Baker Commodities. Royal Tallow, a lOU-year- 
old San Francisco firm, is a division of Darling-Delaware, Inc., and is head- 
quarters of West Coast operations for this national firm. Royal Tallow has 
about 50 permanent employees and anticipates remaining in this location as 
long as Baker Commodities operates there. Royal Tallow may have diffi- 
culty in relocation because of the cost of sites with appropriate truck and 
maritime shipping access and possible public concern about the impacts of a 
rendering operation. 

On EIR p. 120, footnote 4 has been modified and footnote 4a has been added: 

"4. Gene Riddle, Baker Commodities, telephone conversation of October 10, 
1985. 

"4a. Gary Young, Royal Tallow, telephone conversation of December 20, 
1985." 

The statement about Encinal Terminal on EIR p. 31 has been corrected to read: 
"Encinal no longer handles container cargo." 

The last two sentences of EIR p. 45 have been reworded as follows: 

"This will probably change in the future with the construction of 1-280 
ramps on Evans Avenue, near Islais Creek. These ramps were included in the 



149 



VIII. Comments and Responses 



Cal Trans State Transportation Improvement Program five year program in July 
1985 as project 601A 280." 

TRAFFIC ANALYSIS 
Comments : 

"This document appears to provide an adequate analysis of project-generated 
traffic impacts on the state highway system. We assume that this report 
has been developed in a professional manner. However, this statement should 
not be construed as our approval of the analysis, conclusions, and recom- 
mendations included in this document." (Wallace J. Rothbart, Caltrans, 
written comments of November 20, 1985) 

Response : 

As noted in the EIR, the traffic analysis was prepared by a California- 
registered Traffic Engineer. 

TRAIN IMPACTS, SAN FRANCISCO 
Comments on Assumptions and Safety: 

"On page 98, the DEIR states that a maximum of 32 shuttle train operations 
would occur per day, with 14 at night and 18 during the day, and a maximum 
of 10 daily unit trains, with 4 at night and 6 during the day. On page 89, 
the DEIR discusses 6 night shuttle trains and 4 daytime shuttle trains. 
The EIR should use consistent assumptions on shuttle train and unit train 
operations, and the analysis in the traffic section should be based on the 
worst case scenario. 

"Significant potential for conflict exists in the area between the container 
terminal and the Bayshore Yard, which is "just south of the San Francisco 
County boundary. Even at the existing service level of 46 passenger trains/ 

150 



VIII. Comments and Responses 



day, the 32 daily shuttle trains could result in severe conflicts including 
collisions. At anticipated levels of 100 passenger trains/day, the poten- 
tial for accidents is severe. This issue should be analyzed by an exper- 
ienced consultant thoroughly familiar with issues of railroad safety and 
safe braking distances for trains, and methods for reducing accidents. 
(Jeff Georgevich, MTC, written comments of December 2, 1985) 

Response: 

The same assumptions have been used in all studies for the EIR; clarifica- 
tions and corrections have been made to make this explicit. 

The first two complete paragraphs on EIR p. 89 have been clarified to read 
as follows: 

"The ICTF would handle trains carrying cargo in and out of the Port area from 
and to the Bayshore train yard just south of the County line in Brisbane, 
where longer, unit trains would be made up for dispatch across the country 
(see Figure 14, page 90, for location of the Bayshore yard). The railroad 
consultant to the Port, Sverdrup & Parcel (Ron Zimmer, Project Manager), 
estimates that under full operation, upon completion of Phases I and II, 
there would be as many as six unit train trips (some in and some out) be- 
tween 7 PM and 6 AM daily. A more probable case would be four train 
trips (two in and two out) in this night time period. In the 9 AM to 3 
PM period, under peak volume conditions, there could be two unit trains 
in and two out. There would be no unit trains during the peak commute 
periods of 6 AM to 9 AM and 3 PM to 7 PM 

"Each shuttle train of up to twenty-five cars would be up to a half mile 
long and operate at up to ten miles per hour (mph) under highest volume 



151 



VIII. Comments and Responses 



conditions. When operating, the trains would block thoroughfares such as 
Evans Avenue. At a speed of ten mph, the blockage time of each shuttle 
train per affected street vehicle would vary from zero to four minutes, 
depending on the length of the train, and would average about two minutes. 
Blockage of Third Street would vary from four to seven minutes if starting 
from a dead stop. The maximum probable delay is shown in Table 30, page 
93." (see updated Table 30 on Comments and Responses p. 153) 

The third paragraph on EIR p. 98 has been corrected to read: 

"There could be a maximum of 32 shuttle operations per day between the ICTF 
and the Bayshore yard with the ICTF operating at capacity, 18 at night and 
14 in the daytime. South of the Bayshore yard, typically, there would be an 
additional four unit trains per day, two at night and two during the day. 
There could be a maximum of ten trains per day, six at night and four 
during the day, with the ICTF operating at capacity." 

Standards for regulating train headways, track safety and track maintenance 
are in the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), Chapter 49, Parts 199-299. 
The Federal Railway Administration (FRA), in conjunction with the State 
Public Utilities Commission (PUC), is responsible for enforcing these regu- 
lations over all of the "common carrier lines" (track considered to be part 
of the National Transportation System). Safety of railroad lines on pri- 
vate property is under the jurisdiction of the Occupational Safety and 
Health Administration. 



152 



VIII. Comments and Responses 



Table 30. Vehicular Delay Caused by ICTF Trains in San Francisco 



Street 




Time 


Average Vehicular 
Volume During 
Single Blockage 


Maximum 
Number of 
Blockages 


Maximum Total 
Daily Delay in 
Vehicle-Hours-^ 


Third Street 


9 


AM-3 PM 


130 


14 


110 


Third Street 


7 


PM-6 AM 


25 


18 


26 


Evans Avenue 


9 


AM-3 PM 


54 


14 


25 


Evans Avenue 


7 


PM-6 AM 


18 


18 


11 


Jerrold Ave. 


9 


AM-3 PM 


35 Est. 2 


14 


16 


Jer ro i a Mve . 


7 
/ 


DM AM 




18 


2 


Cargo Way 


9 


AM-3 PM 


25 


14 


12 


Cargo Way 


7 


PM-6 AM 


12 


18 


7 






HIGHEST 


TOTAL DAILY DELAY 


(Third Street) 140 



1. Average 4-minute traffic flow during the given time period x average 
delay of 2 minutes x number of blockages (7-minute average flow and 3.5 
minutes average delay for Third Street, per Ronald N. Zimmer, Port 
Train Consultant, December 16, 1985). 

2. Jerrold Ave. source counts were from the early 1970s. They were in- 
creased based on the Traffic Consultant's judgement and for that reason 
are labelled Est. 

Source: William Marconi, P.E., and Bendix Environmental Research, Inc. 



Train headways are controlled by a combination of regulations governing sig- 
nal timing and train operating orders. FRA inspections for compliance with 
these regulations ensure the maintenance of safe headways. Detailed track 
inspection records are kept by the FRA and checked by the PUC. 

Southern Pacific rule books state that freight trains must be off mainline 
and adjacent tracks fifteen minutes prior to passenger trains leaving pre- 
ceding stations. On the section of mainline track that would be affected 



153 



VIII, Comments and Responses 



by the shuttle train operation, the present commuter train schedule is such 
that shuttle trains could not use the track from 5:45 AM to 9:17 AM and 
from 3:51 PM to 6:07 PM^ 

At present, daytime passenger trains run one to two hours apart between the 
two commuter peak periods. Future increases in midday passenger service 
leading to headways of thirty minutes would not be a problem for daytime 
freight trains. Installation of additional safety controls on the main line 
would make it possible to run freight trains on the main line safely be- 
tween passenger trains that were 20 to 25 minutes apart. 

Joe Brown, Deputy District Director for Cal Trans, has indicated that there 
are no short term plans for a large increase in commuter passenger service. 
At about the end of 1986 the number of trains will be increased from 46 to 
52 per day.^ 

1. Letter from Jim Tham, Triumph Marketing, Port Consultant, to Arthur 
Osborne, Director of Maintenance and Engineering, Port of San Francisco, 
June 18, 1985) 

2. Letter from Jim Tham, Triumph Marketing, to Ronald N. Zimmer, Sverdrup- 
Parcel, Port Consultant, May 6, 1985). 

Comments on Ferry Service and Service Abandonment: 

"I would like to say also that on page 91, under train impacts, it is men- 
tioned that Western Pacific Railroad has a ferry train terminal that is in 
the area and it is intended that trains should leave the port terminals 
traveling eastward on its ferry terminal. 

"Six weeks ago that ferry terminal burned down and no longer exists... 

"It is noted on Page 91 that if Western Pacific were authorized to remove 
that terminal, the freight would have to travel to the main railroad line 

154 



VIII. Comments and Responses 



across the Intermodal Bridge just east of the current drawbridge. If that 

were to occur, that would put pressure on the project to make the proposed 

Intermodal Bridge a permanent bridge." (John Porter, public hearing com- 
ments) 

Response : 

The Western Pacific/Union Pacific ferry terminal has not been in use for at 
least six years, according to R. J. Mead of Western Pacific (telephone con- 
versation of November 26, 1985). A second alarm fire occurred at the un- 
used ferry terminal pier on June 29, 1985 (Fire Incident Report 03583). 

The last paragraph on DEIR p. 91 has been clarified and updated to read as 
follows: 

"The Western Pacific Railroad now provides service from the North Terminal 
to the South Terminal through a complicated series of switching arrangements 
involving several rail lines. In December 1985, Western Pacific filed 
for abandonment of lines which include a portion of this switching route. 
This would eliminate rail service to berth Nl and make rail service to the 
rest of SFCT-North less convenient. 

"Dean Macris, San Francisco Director of City Planning, representing the San 
Francisco Transportation Policy Group, has protested Western Pacific's pro- 
posed track abandonment on the grounds that: 1) there is a need for compe- 
titive rail freight service; 2) there are prospects for freight traffic to 
increase; 3) the environmental impact upon San Francisco has not been ade- 
quately addressed. I'^t) 

"The Port is currently analyzing options for a connecting service from SFCT- 
North to the main line track, should the abandonment be approved, in order 

155 



VIII. Comments and Responses 



to avoid the detour to the next main line connection further north in the 
San Francisco trackage. Alternatives being considered include a connection 
to the main line track via the proposed i ntertermi nal bridge and the Cargo 
Way track or movement of containers from SFCT-North by equipment such as 
port -packers over the i ntertermi nal bridge to the ICTF. The latter option 
may be the most cost-effective and would eliminate the present time-con- 
suming, complicated switching operations." 

Note that Western Pacific has filed for abandonment of trackage, not of a 
termi nal . 

The following footnotes have been added to EIR p. 94: 

"10a. In the past, rail to ferry services were provided from the Santa Fe 
China Basin rail yard and the Western Pacific yard north of SFCT-North. 
These ferry services were abandoned as uneconomical. 

"10b. Dean L. Macris, Chairman, Transportation Policy Group, City and 
County of San Francisco, Verified Statement before the Interstate Commerce 
Commission, Docket No. AB-105 (Sub-No. 8), December 11, 1985. 

If moving containers by rubber-tire container-handling equipment such as 
port-packers proves to be more cost-effective than running a rail line 
across the interterminal bridge, and if a rail connection across the bridge 
is not necessary, no rail line would be placed on the bridge. 

The Port has decided on a movable bridge in order not to interfere with the 
navigability of Islais Creek. The impacts of a permanent bridge and the 
reasons for rejecting that alternative are discussed on DEIR pp. 138-139. 
The volume of containers passing over the bridge would not create pressure 
to convert to a permanent bridge because it would not involve long strings 
of cars which would interfere with raising of the bridge. 

156 



VIII. Comments and Responses 



Comments on Effects of Double -stacked Cars: 

"Some months ago the Port presented its plans to S.P.U.R. I was invited 
and did attend that meeting. At that meeting the Port people stated that 
at full operation they would bring in four trains, with double deck con- 
tainers, a day, and four trains would go out. The trains would be 5000 
feet long. Since the Port only has 2500 feet of track on their property 
the trains would have to be broken at Third Street. The first half would 
be brought onto the property, then the second half. The reverse process 
would be necessary for outgoing trains. During these times Third Street 
would be blocked, as well as Quint, Arthur and other streets. Evans would 
be blocked as the train came in or left the terminal. 

"The Port representatives at the S.P.U.R. meeting indicated they could not 
double deck the containers (as their competition in Long Beach and Seattle 
can) because the tunnels in San Francisco are too low... 

"It would appear that if the trains cannot be double decked that the trains 
will be longer, or more numerous. Such a situation would be even more dis- 
astrous for the traffic on Third, Evans, and adjoining streets. 

"It may be that the Port has found a solution to this problem, such as all 
truck use, but that seems to be inconsistent with the master plan expressed 
concerning this facility." (Raymond Bright, written comments of November 
25, 1985) 

Response: 

The EIR description of train operations is more up-to-date than information 

presented at the SPUR meeting. As indicated on DEIR p. 18, 50-car unit 

trains would only run south of the Bayshore train yard. The analysis on 



157 



VIII. Comments and Responses 



DEIR p. 89 takes into consideration all the train traffic to be generated 
by anticipated SFCT cargo volumes on single-stacked rail cars in strings of 
up to twenty-five cars between the ICTF and the Bayshore yard and unit 
trains of fifty cars south from the Bayshore yard. Double-stacked cars 
would not be used until such time as tunnel constraints on the route are 
rel i eved. 

As indicated by the commentor, use of trucks to handle all containers would 
be inconsistent with the intent of the ICTF. 

TRAIN IMPACTS, PENINSULA 

Comments on Impacts on Commuter Trains: 

"On page 89-91, the EIR states that no conflict is anticipated between unit 
trains and commuter trains because unit trains would operate between commu- 
ter trains and would not operate at peak commute times. This conclusion is 
presented without any supporting documentation or analysis. In view of the 
recommendation resulting from the Peninsula Mass Transit Study that "fre- 
quent, all-day rail transit service" is needed, and given that all 8 of the 
"build" alternatives in that study assume a mid-day headway of at most 30 
minutes, the potential for conflict is considerable, and needs to be care- 
fully analyzed in this EIR. 

"On page 91, we recommend deleting the first new paragraph, and replacing it 
as follows: 'The Metropolitan Transportation Commission completed the Pen- 
insula Mass Transit Study in July, 1985, and stated that "The long run 
objective for the Peninsula corridor is to provide frequent, all -day rail 
transit service." The study investigated the desirability of having a 
Joint Powers Agency acquire the Southern Pacific-owned right-of-way and 
assume control over the operation of both passenger and freight trains. 

158 



VIII. Comments and Responses 



Passenger train headways of 7.5 to 30 minutes during the mid-day were exam- 
ined. This headway would not permit operation of unit trains during the 
day, which could severely impair the efficiency of the ICTF.'" (Jeff 
Georgevich, MTC, written comments of December 2, 1985) 

Response: 

The first complete fl on EIR p. 91 has been replaced with the following H: 

"MTC completed the Peninsula Mass Transit Study^ in July, 1985, and stated 
that 'The long run objective for the Peninsula corridor is to provide fre- 
quent, all-day rail transit service.' The study considered the desirability 
of creation of a Joint Powers Authority to acquire the Southern Pacific- 
owned right-of-way and assume control over the operation of passenger 
trains. The study was primarily a passenger service study and did not ex- 
amine the role of freight train service in the Bay Area economy. Midday 
passenger train headways of as little as 7.5 minutes were examined; how- 
ever, since peak period headways now run four to ten minutes, it seems 
unlikely that midday demand would ever justify such frequent service. Any 
future changes in train scheduling would take into consideration the needs 
of both freight and passenger service and would probably be designed to 
accommodate both types of service." As indicated on DEIR p. 63, the report 
recommended that the new transit authority contract with a short-line opera- 
tor to perform freight operation over the transit tracks, rather than con- 
struct a separate track for freight traffic because of the cost of new rail 
line construction. 

See also Comments and Responses pp. 152-154. 



159 



VIII. Comments and Responses 



Comments on Emergency Response and Noise: 

"The City of San Mateo is concerned with the length of the train passing 
through the city. If this train during full operation is one-half mile 
long, it will have a detrimental impact on the city's emergency response 
times." (Barbara Heinrich, City of San Mateo, written comments of November 
26, 1985) 

"The Joint Powers Fire Authority I represent is extremely concerned about 
the railroad operations impacts to the cities of Belmont and San Carlos. 
The full operation of one-half mile long trains will seriously impact fire 
responses and response times in our communities. 

"Neither community has a grade separation. Both communities have only two 
grade crossings. The additional trains will cause traffic to back up at 
these intersections and affect north and south response to emergencies as 
well as east and west responses. 

"Implementation of this concept could cause us to have to consider the re- 
location or addition of an additional fire station and the potential of 
hiring more employees and purchasing more equipment." (Gary W. Schmitz, 
Fire Chief, South County Fire Department, written comments of November 6, 
1985.) 

"After carefully considering the material presented us in the Draft EIR, 
the police command staff has concluded that the described train crossings 
will have no significant impact on our law enforcement .abilities in San 
Carlos." (Owen McGuigan, City of San Carlos, written comments of November 
25, 1985) 



♦ 



160 



VIII. Comments and Responses 



"The Draft EIR states that additional train traffic associated with the 
project will increase noise levels on the Peninsula train route. The Final 
EIR should include mitigation measures for this impact. Train noise is a 
sensitive issue in Sunnyvale due to the number of existing and planned 
residential units which border the tracks." (William F. Powers, City of 
Sunnyvale, written comments of October 31, 1985) 

Response: 

The following text has been added to the end of the first complete II on EIR 
p. 89: 

"Rail freight service on the Peninsula has decreased in the last twenty 
years, with shorter and less frequent trains. Since October, 1985, there 
is one Southern Pacific train (the Mission Bay-Warm Springs Turn) that runs 
six days per week, leaving San Francisco early Monday through Saturday 
morning and passing San Carlos around 1:00 AM This train returns to San 
Francisco on the same days, following the last morning commuter train from 
San Jose, passing San Carlos about 9:00 AM The proposed project would 
not restore freight traffic to pre-1980 levels. If the increases in pas- 
senger train operations considered in the Peninsula Mass Transit Study were 
to occur, they would have a greater effect on total train frequency than 
would the proposed project." 

The following footnote has been added to EIR p. 94: 

"6a. In the late 1950's there were eight freight trains in and out per 
day." 

Present freight trains average 35 cars in each direction; in the seventies, 
the train length averaged over 50 cars. A 35-cdr train with a caboose and 

161 



VIII. Comments and Responses 



three engines is about 2,260 feet long (0.4 mile). A 50-car unit train 
with intermodal cars, a caboose and three engines would be about 4,930 feet 
long (0.9 mi le) . 

Freight train speeds vary according to the volume of train traffic on the 
line, the volume of vehicular cross-traffic, and Southern Pacific Western 
Division operations rules. Night trains can be expected to average 60 
miles per hour (mph) while daytime trains would average 40 mph. 

Computer simulation* prepared since publication of the DEIR indicates that 
present 35-car trains block an intersection 1.2 minutes at 60 mph and 1.4 
minutes at 40 mph. A maximum length intermodal train would block an inter- 
section for 1.7 minutes at 60 mph and 2.2 minutes at 40 mph. Under worst 
case conditions of a maximum number of maximum length trains, each Penin- 
sula intersection would be blocked for a total of about ten minutes at 
night and about 9 minutes in the daytime, during any 24-hour period. The 
sentence ending on EIR p. 91, line 5, has been amended to read: "Each unit 
train would block each Peninsula intersection for a maximum of 2.2 min 
utes." 

*David Forgie, Triumph Marketing, Port Consultant, letter of December 3, 
1985, available for public review at the Department of City Planning, 450 
McAllister Street. 

The following text has been added to EIR p. 97 after the first complete fl: 

"Freight train blockage of Peninsula intersections would increase from 
about 1.2 to 1.7 minutes per train at night and about 1.4 to 2.2 minutes 
per train in the daytime. Current passenger trains, which make up 95% of 
train traffic on the Peninsula line, block each intersection about 0.8 min- 
utes when there is no local stop and 0.9 to 1.7 minutes when there is a 

162 



VIII. Comments and Responses 



local stop.^" Night freight trains would not block intersections longer 
than present commuter trains, and day freight trains would block intersec- 
tions from a similar length of time to passenger trains to up to half a 
minute more. An additional intersection blockage of half a minute several 
times a day is unlikely to produce significant impacts on emergency ser- 
vices operations. 

The following note has been added after Note 3 on EIR p. 97: 

"4. Letter of David Forgie, Triumph Marketing, Port Consultant, to Selina 
Bendix, Bendix Environmental Research, Inc., EIR Consultant, of December 
16, 1985." 

As indicated at the top of DEIR p. 91, freight trains would not run during 
peak commuter hours; therefore, these trains would not be expected to cause 
much traffic to back up at Belmont and San Carlos crossings or elsewhere 
along the route. 

As noted previously, increased freight train traffic due to the proposed 
project would not bring freight traffic up to levels which existed ten 
years ago and would not have as much effect on over-all train frequency as 
the potentially more intensive passenger train operation on this line. 
Housing recently built and under construction along the train route was 
approved with incorporation of noise mitigation measures to deal with noise 
from the existing Southern Pacific main line track, according to William 
Powers, Sunnyvale Director of Planning.* 

* Telephone conversation of December 2, 1985. 



163 



VIII. Comments and Responses 

PUBLIC ACCESS 
Comments: 

"Also the project does not allow for adequate public access — visual and/ 
or physical — either to the Bay or the north and south terminals themselves. 
One of San Francisco's prime open space resources is the bay shore and the 
maritime uses which are "indigenous" to it, the present project being one 
such. While container terminals are not what one might call a conven- 
tional open space resource, the San Francsico Chapter feels that the mari- 
time industry is an important aspect of the City's urban open space. It 
gives form and character to large parts of the bay shore and frequently 
makes interesting viewing. Public access to it will also foster a greater 
appreciation of its importance and value to the City. 

"On this issue however, the EIR states only that access through the termi- 
nals is infeasible because it would be hazardous. Undoubtedly pedestrians 
milling around among trucks, trains, and other machinery would raise safety 
issues. However the EIR does not even attempt to develop alternative mode 
of public access that would not be hazardous. For instance, viewing plat- 
forms or elevated walkways — either within the terminal sites or at their 
boundaries — are two measures that might have been considered but were not. 
In light of the significance of the public access policies in the relevant 
governmental plans and policies, the EIR's cursory treatment of this issue 
is inadequate. (That the edge of the southern terminal will be visible 
from Pier 98 does nothing to alleviate this problem.) 

• 

"In any case, continuous, preferably landscaped, pedestrian access from the 
Mission Bay area to the west end of Islais Creek, to Pier 98 and beyond is 
essential, whether it traverses the terminal sites themselves or skirts 

164 



VIII. Comments and Responses 

their inland boundaries. This project should make provision for such ac- 
cess within the relevant Port lands: it must not become a barrier which 
isolates Pier 98 from shoreline areas to the north." (Zach Cowan, Green- 
belt Congress, written comments of 21 November 1985) 

Response: 

The Port has proposed provision of public access at Pier 98, because it be- 
lieves this would fulfill the spirit of the public access requirement and 
would be an opportunity to resolve outstanding issues at Pier 98. If, during 
the BCDC permit process, BCDC and the public should express a preference 
for another public access proposal, the Port would consider alternatives. 

The following new 11 has been added after fl3 on EIR p. 112: 

"Implementation of the proposed project would not affect sites recommended 
for improved or new public access in the revised Recreation & Open Space 
Element of the Master Plan now under public review and expected to be 
adopted in 1986. A continuous shoreline trail is under discussion by City 
and other agencies. In the vicinity of the ICTF, it would run inland on 
City sidewalks and private property owned by railroads and PGandE, not on 
Port -owned property. This possibility would not be affected by further 
development of the SFCT." 

SUBSIDENCE AND SEISMIC HAZARDS: 
Comments: 

"Page 12 -- 2nd paragraph -- Will the weight of the addition of up to 4 new 
100' electric gage container cranes contribute to increased subsidence at 
the North Terminal? 



165 



i 



VIII. Comments and Responses 



"A preliminary investigation should be made regarding this issue and a full 
report should be included in the Final EIR. 

"Furthermore, has subsidence decreased the efficiency of cargo handling in 
the past at the North Terminal? If so, will this continue to be a problem 
since land subsidence is expected to be an ongoing situation and will the 
problem be intensified because of the possibility of increased subsidence? 
If the answer to these questions is 'yes', will the number of cargo ves- 
sels handled be reduced, will the handling time per vessel and container 
be increased and will the vessel and train time turn-around be increased? 

"Page 65- 3rd paragraph — Because of the type of landfill, the ongoing 
subsidence problem, the potential for seismic activity and the possibility 
of liquefaction in the event of an earthquake, detailed preliminary inves- 
tigations should be made and should be presented fully in the Final EIR. 
The one-sentence paragraph on page 65 of the DEIR is far from adequate." 
(Marcel la Jacobson, Save San Francisco Bay Association, written comments of 
November 24, 1985) 

Response : 

As indicated on DEIR p. 12, at the end of the first complete fl, the new 
cranes would be supported on new piles. The piles would bear the weight of 
the new cranes so that they would not affect settlement at the North Termi- 
nal . 

Past subsidence has diminished the efficiency of cargo handling at the 
North Terminal. Continued subsidence is expected but would not be acceler- 
ated by the proposed project. Dames & Moore has indicated that "placement 
of additional fill [at Pier 80] will result in increased settlement," but 

166 



VIII. Comments and Responses 



that "the increase in total settlement will be smaller than the additional 
fill thickness, and the net result of the filling will be to raise the 
ultimate grade... the ultimate anticipated settlements may not occur within 
the useful life of the proposed improvements."! Use of relatively light 
weight fill material was recommended in order to reduce the additional load 
upon the compressible bay muds. 

If fill similar to past fill were to be used, it is estimated that in 
twenty years about three feet of settlement would take place compared to 
the eight to eleven feet of settlement which have taken place so far. Use 
of light weight fill would result in less than three feet of settlement in 
this time period. This additional settlement would not affect the number 
of cargo vessels handled at SFCT-North. If the settlement were found to 
affect vessel and train turn-round time, additional fill could be placed to 
relevel the site. 

The most important seismic safety issue at SFCT-North is the stability of 
the sand dikes which retain the fill. This was considered by Dames & Moore 
in a 1970 report entitled "Seismic Stability Studies, Proposed Sand Dike 
for LASH Terminal Facility, San Francisco, California." Their 1982 report 
states that: "Nothing has been observed in this present study which would 
cause us to alter the conclusions reached in that report." Using design 
criteria "more stringent. ..than have been used for facilities with an equal 
risk exposure," the 1970 report concluded that the sand dikes would be 
stable and undergo only repairable damage in an earthquake. 

The Geotechnical Consultants, Inc., December 1983 "Geotechnical Investiga- 
tion, Pier 94" considered potential seismic effects on Pier 94, using the 
United States Geological Survey EQRISK risk analysis computer program, and 

167 



VIII. Comments and Responses 



concluded that there is a 50 percent probability of a Richter magnitude 6.5 
earthquake during the 50-year design life of the project from an earthquake 
on a major fault within 100 miles of the site and a 10 percent probability 
of a Richter magnitude 7.5 earthquake. The analysis concludes that during 
such earthquakes "liquefaction of sand and gravel fill is very unlikely." 
(page SF83052-23). Liquefaction could occur in localized loose sand but 
this "would not significantly affect the overall stability of the sand 
dike." 

As indicated, seismic hazards have been considered in geotechnical studies 
prepared for the proposed project and are available for public review at 
the Department of City Planning. The single sentence on DEIR p. 65 was an 
explanation of the basis for focusing this impact out of the EIR. When an 
agency determines that a potential impact can be mitigated to insignifi- 
cance, the California Environmental Quality Act does not require coverage 
of that impact in the EIR. 

1. Geotechnical Investigation, Army Street Terminal (Pier 80), San Fran- 
cisco, California, for the San Francisco Port Commission, 1982). 

UNDERGROUND FUEL TANKS: 
Comments: 

"Page 15 - 2nd paragraph states that an underground fuel storage tank could 
be part of a fueling station for diesel equipment such as cranes and port 
packers. 

"As stated on page 12, the cranes would be electrically operated. The 
Final EIR should clarify whether the cranes will be electrically operated 
or by di esel fuel . 

« 

168 



VIII. Comments and Reponses 



"Also the Final EIR should state where the underground tanks will be located 
and preliminary soils investigations should be made to determine the appro- 
priate location. Details of the soils reports should be included in the 
Final tIR. 

"The Final EIR should discuss whether or not the underground tanks will be 
located underneath roads and heavy equipment, whether or not they will be 
located under deadweight and what would be the stresses on the tanks if 
located under such facilities... 

"...Page 64 — 3rd paragraph states that new underground fuel tanks would 
conform to California Sher Act safety requirements and to Environmental 
Protection Regulations to be promulgated under the 1984 amendments to the 
Resources Conservation and Recovery Act... 

"How many underground tanks are contemplated? Will they be installed? What 
alternatives are there to locating fuel tanks underground? Answers to 
these questions should be discussed in the Final EIR. 

"Because of the ongoing problem of subsidence and the possibility of seis- 
mic activity in the project area, the underground tanks should be regarded 
as serious hazards. What is the potential for liquefaction in the project 
area in the event of an earthquake? These hazards should be fully addres- 
sed in the Final EIR. 

"It is questionable whether the Sher Act addresses every important aspect 
of the underground tanks contemplated in the project area. Although the 
Sher Act requires certain design and construction standards and a monitor- 
ing program, it does not consider the risks of underground fuel tanks lo- 
cated in unstable landfill sites subject to ongoing subsidence and to the 



169 



VIII. Comments and Responses 



possibility of seismic activity. It appears that the Sher Act excludes 
underground tanks used for storage of motor fuel. 

"Would the underground storage tanks survive the stresses of movement of 
heavy equipment and traffic occurring in the work area? Would they survive 
the stresses of deadweight? What is the nature of the fill at the North 
Termi nal ? 

"Preliminary investigations should be made and all of these issues should 
be fully addressed in the Final EIR. The applicability of the Sher Act 
should be clarified." (Marcel la Jacobson, Save San Francisco Bay Associa- 
tion, written comments of November 24, 1985) 

Response: 

The new cranes at the SFCT-North would be electrically operated. The words 
"cranes and" have been deleted on EIR p. 15, line 12. 

Decisions about potential use, numbers and location of underground fuel 
storage tanks would not be made until the detailed design stage of the pro- 
ject. 

Tanks and fittings can be designed to withstand the anticipated degree of 
settling and vibrations from cargo and equipment movement on the surface. 
This would be done if a decision is made to use underground tanks in areas 
of container handling and truck activity. Tanks would not be installed 
under buildings. 

Alternatives to underground storage tanks would be above ground storage 
tanks or tank trucks parked on site. Above ground storage tanks could be 
more easily monitored for leakage, would be more subject to accidents 



170 



VIII. Comments and Responses 

breaching their integrity, and would use space that could otherwise be used 
for revenue-producing activities. Use of under- or above-ground permanent 
fuel storage tanks would facilitate installation of permanent safety con- 
trol measures such as dikes. Use of fuel trucks for fuel storage could 
result in a smaller amount of fuel on site at a time, would eliminate Sher 
Act environmental controls, would involve costs for trucks which are not in 
use much of the time, and would use surface space. 

As indicated in the previous response, geotechnical investigations indicate 
that liquefaction, which could potentially result in stress failure of 
above- or below-ground tanks and fuel pipelines would not be expected in 
the project area. Any tanks would be designed and installed so as to mini- 
mize the effects of any earthquake-induced stresses probable at the site. 

Section 25284(a)(7) of the Sher Act exempts underground motor vehicle fuel 
storage tanks from the provisions of §25284(a)(l) through (6) regarding se- 
condary containment (double-walled tanks), if the primary tank is of glass 
fibre [sic] reinforced plastic, cathodically protected steel (protected 
from electrical currents which could corrode the tank), or steel covered 
with glass fibre reinforced plastic, and the tank is installed with a sys- 
tem that will "intercept and direct a leak from any part of the tank to a 
monitoring well to detect any release of motor vehicle fuels stored in the 
tank and which is designed to provide early leak detection, response, and 
to protect groundwater from releases." Most businesses elect to install 
double-walled tanks rather than go through the lengthy procedures for qual- 
ifying for an exemption; the Port will decide what it is going to do later 
in the detailed terminal design process. 



171 



VIII. Comments and Responses 



All other portions of the Sher Act, covering leak monitoring, tank level 
monitoring, tank testing, tank repair, local agency controls, etc., would 
apply to any tanks installed at the SFCT. 

Preliminary soil investigations have been made for both SFCT-North and SFCT- 
South and were cited in the DEIR on pp. 113-116. The contents of these en- 
gineering reports are highly technical and largely inappropriate for inclu- 
sion in an EIR. As indicated on DEIR pp. 116 and 118, these reports are 
available for public review at the Department of City Planning. North Ter- 
minal fill is largely fine sand. 

Diesel fuel storage would present less fire hazard than gasoline because of 
differences in the temperatures at which these two fuels can form inflam- 
mable vapors, known as their flash points. The flash point of gasoline is 
- 45° Fahrenheit (°F), meaning that it is easily ignited. In contrast, the 
flash point for diesel fuel is never less than 100°F, which means that it 
is not going to be ignited under San Francisco's climatic conditions unless 
it is preheated by the burning of another fuel (which would not be expected 
at the SFCT). 

BAY FILL, FILL REMOVA L & DREDGING 
Comments : 

"The EIR states that the proposed drawbridge will be built on piles, but 
will be counted as fill only because it will be over the surface of the 
water. The implication is that there will be no actual filling of Islais 
Creek with soil or other materials in order to build the drawbridge. Is 
this in fact the case?" (Zach Cowan, Greenbelt Congress, written comments 
of November 21, 1985) 

172 



VIII. Comments and Responses 

"Page 4 - 2nd paragraph states that the bridge over Islais Creek would con- 
stitute 0.5 to 1.1 ac. of fill which would be more than offset by Port fill 
credits from the removal of the piers. 

"Which piers does this refer to?. .."Page 131 ~ Item 4 — The Final EIR 
should state where the fill credits are located and should state BCDC's 
regulations regarding fill credits. 

"Page 24 - last paragraph — Will a BCDC permit be required for removal of 
fill from the south side of Islais Creek? If so, this should be noted in 
the Final EIR. 

"Dredged material from the area to be occupied by the tanks should be depo- 
sited at an appropriate land site — not in the Bay. 

"Page 54 — Table 10 — Policies in the Bay Plan concerning Safety of Fills 
should be added to Table 10. 

"Page 110 — 1st paragraph — Would a BCDC permit be required in addition 
to the Corps permit mentioned? If so, this should be noted in the Final EIR. 

"Page 112 — 2nd paragraph states that it is possible that one or two acres 
of fill may be removed (from Pier 98) as part of the resolution of the un- 
completed permit; the matter remains to be discussed with BCDC as detailed 
plans for the area develop. 

"The Final EIR should explain what, if anything, has to be resolved. 

"Since the permit has lapsed (as stated on page 111), that fact should have 
been stated in this section of the DEIR and should be stated in the Final 
EIR. 



173 



VIII. Comments and Responses 



"Page 116 Pier 98 Fill — Will BCDC ask for removal of some of the fill 
since the fill is not used for the purpose intended? 

"Page 129 -- Item 3 refers to removal on the south side of Islais Creek and 
the possibility of dredging to deepen the creek and states that this would be 
done with equipment and techniques designed to minimize impacts on adjacent 
Bay water quality. 

"The Final EIR should include the specific measures that will be taken to 
minimize the impacts. 

"Page 67 - 1st paragraph -- What adverse impacts on water quality will be 
expected because of removal of fill on the south side of Islais Creek. 

"Page 131 - item 3 — The Final EIR should include detailed information re- 
garding how leachates will be contained." (Marcella Jacobson, Save San Fran- 
cisco Bay Association, written comments of November 24, 1985) 

"Deferred Assessments of Some Potential Impacts. In addressing certain 
potential impacts of the proposed project, the DEIR, in effect, defers the 
assessment of specific impacts to later studies that conceivably may not be 
available until a Bay Commission permit is sought. That is the case for 
water quality issues, for the stability of fills on both sides of Islais 
Creek, and for work at Pier 98. For water quality and soils stability, the 
DEIR indicates that appropriate tests will be undertaken, necessary permits 
obtained, and applicable laws met, and it concludes this will mitigate any 
potential adverse impacts. The DEIR does not describe the public access 
and habitat enhancement proposal for Pier 9.8 in sufficient detail to assess 
possible impacts in any terms but very general ones. The Final EIR should, 
really, contain sufficiently specific information so that the probable 

174 



VIII. Comments and Responses 



impacts of the project can be evaluated and specific mitigation measures 
included. Soils and water quality test data and the related conclusions 
and recommendations of apropriate experts should be presented in the EIR. 
Similarly, the description of the work at Pier 98 should include the loca- 
tion and extent of fill removal and of marsh enhancement, and the EIR 
should explain any constraints that water quality concerns are likely to 
impose on that part of the project. 

"Dredge Spoils Disposal Sites. Statements on pages 58 and 131 of the DEIR 
regarding Bay Commission acceptance of dredge spoils disposal sites may be 
misconstrued by some readers to mean that any dredge disposal site in the 
Bay would be acceptable to the Commission simply because it had been ac- 
cepted by the Corps of Engineers. In fact the Commission must determine 
that spoils disposal at a proposed site is consistent with Bay Plan poli- 
cies on dredging. The Commission has agreed, to date, with the Corps that 
certain sites, including the Alcatraz site, are acceptable deposition 
sites." 

"Since it will be necessary to resolve the legal status of the existing fill 
there in order to plan this part of the project reliably, we urge the Port 
staff to discuss these issues before the issue is completed." (Philip E. 
Kern, BCDC, written comments of December 3, 1985) 

"I own the property at 1650 Davidson. The back of my property is on Islais 
Creek, and I have a block of property there. 

"In reading the report it seems that they are going to have to dredge the 
Islais Canal out an additional 15 feet. In the past, every time they have 



175 



VIII. Comments and Responses 



dredged the Islais Creek, the adjoining properties have all sunk or have 
been subject to a lot of sinking. 

"In the past couple of years, they put a sewer plant in, and the property 
actually sunk about 27 inches. If they dig the back out of this, I want to 
make sure that they have provisions for shoring this property up and all 
the property all the way down to the bay frontage." (Murray Cole, public 
hearing comments) 

Response : 

The bridge over Islais Creek has not been designed yet. It may be supported 
on piles in the Creek. As indicated on DEIR p. 130, if footings in Islais 
Creek should be required, they would be designed to have minimum impacts on 
water circulation in Islais Creek and would be constructed by methods de- 
signed to minimize water turbidity. No placement of earth or sand fill in 
Islais Creek would be required for the bridge. 

Page 4 is part of the EIR Summary. The last sentence of the first 11 of 
Impacts Chapter p. 113 has been revised to read: "This fill would be more 
than off-set by Port fill credits from past removal of about three acres on 
the southern waterfront (0.8 acre at the Mission Creek Marina, 1.9 acres at 
Pier 88, and 0.5 acre in the Pier 64/66 area) and potential future removal 
of about five acres at pier 70 and about eight acres at Pier 64 north of 
the SECT. BCDC has indicated that these pier-removal credits may be used 
to offset other pile-supported fill, such as the proposed Islais Creek 
bridge." A separate BCDC permit would not be required for fill-removal 
from Islais Creek; this would be covered by the project permit for devel- 
opment within BCDC jurisdiction. If underground tanks were to be instal- 



176 



VIII. Comments and Responses 



led, the fill removed for them would not be dredged material and would be 
deposited at an appropriate land site. 



The following text has been added to Table 10, EIR page 58: 



"SAFETY OF FILLS 



Policy 1. 'The Commission has ap- 
pointed the Engineering Criteria 
Review Board consisting of geolo- 
gists, civil engineers specializing 
in soils engineering, structural 
engineers, and architects competent 
to and empowered to (a) establish 
and revise safety criteria for Bay 
fills and structures thereon, (b) 
review all except minor projects 
for the adequacy of their specific 
safety provisions, and make recom- 
mendations concerning these provi- 
sions.. . ' 



The project could be subject to re- 
view by BCDC's Engineering Criteria 
Review Board. Any recommendations 
the Board may make concerning the 
safety of fills must be addressed by 
the Port before permits are granted 
for the project. Need for Board Re- 
view would be determined during the 
BCDC permitting process. 



Policy 2. 'Even if the Bay plan 
indicates that a fill may be per- 
missible, no fill or building 
should be constructed if hazards 
cannot be overcome adequately for 
the intended use in accordance with 
the criteria prescribed by the En- 
gineering Criteria Review Board.' 



The facilities would be designed to 
be safe whether or not referred to 
the Engineering Criteria Review 
Board, because the Port of San Fran- 
cisco has no desire to incur the 
legal liability that would be asso- 
ciated with an inadequately designed 
facility." 



The first complete 11 on EIR p. 110 has been revised to read: 



"An Army Corps of Engineers permit would be obtained for removal of fill 
from the south side of Islais Creek during Phase II. This permit would 
require tests of the fill material to be removed to determine possible im- 
pacts on water quality and an appropriate disposal site. Permits from the 
Army Corps of Engineers and BCDC would be obtained for disposal of the fill 
if the fill were to be disposed of in the Bay or within BCDC jurisdiction. 
Potential impacts on Bay organisms would be considered during permit evalua- 



177 



VIII. Comments and Responses 

tion. A small amount of sediment habitat in Islais Creek may be removed as 
a result of the placement of footings for the new i ntertermi nal bridge." 

Fill has been placed at Pier 98 pursuant to two BCDC permits, fill placed 
for wave suppression in connection with a completed project and fill placed 
for the Southern Crossing which was not completed. Unintentional fill re- 
sulted from a mud wave induced by the emplaced fill. BCDC must determine 
whether all of the fill placed for the first project was authorized in that 
permit. BCDC staff have indicated that the Port should remove two or more 
acres of the total fill at Pier 98 but cannot make a final decision until 
enough information is available to indicate that this can be done without: 
1) risk of exposing fill material which could leach undesirable materials 
into the Bay, 2) formation of a new mud wave to replace the exising mud 
wave because of the continued effects of the deliberate fill, and 3) signi- 
ficant habitat disturbance for the intertidal zone community that has devel- 
oped over the past fifteen years. 

The Port plans to conduct appropriate technical studies to answer these 
questions, in consultation with BCDC, the Regional Water Quality Control 
Board, the State Department of Fish and Game, and other concerned agencies. 
After the studies are performed, if all the agencies involved concur that 
fill can be removed without significant environmental impacts, the Port 
would remove as much fill as requested by BCDC.l The public access facili- 
ties design for Pier 98 cannot be done until a decision is made about dis- 
position of the fill. Port staff has conferred with BCDC' staff, as re- 
quested, and BCDC staff has agreed to performance of the required studies 
and public facilities design after certification of the EIR and before con- 
sideration of the BCDC permit. ^ 

178 



VIII. Comments and Responses 



If the investigations reveal that the fill cannot be safely removed, or that 
it would be desirable to preserve the fill for habitat value, then the Port 
is prepared to compensate for the excess fill by either recontouring some 
of the existing land area adjacent to the intertidal portion of Pier 98 to 
bring two additional acres down to an elevation that would be submerged at 
high tide or, if this is not appropriate environmentally or feasible econo- 
mically, the Port may propose to off-set the two acres by its existing 
southern waterfront fill credits of approximately three acres and/or by 
removing fill at another location. ^ In the past BCDC has not approved off- 
setting solid fill with pile-supported fill removal. Phase II of the pro- 
posed project would involve removal of up to 0.9 acre of fill from Islais 
Creek. The Port expects to start selection of consultants for the neces- 
sary studies early in 1986. 

Since the lapsing of the fill permit for Pier 98 was stated on DEIR p. Ill, 
as indicated by the commentor, there is no need to repeat this statement on 
EIR p. 112, in the same subsection. 

Selection of appropriate dredge mitigation measures would be made after 
further investigation of the chemical nature of the fill to be removed and 
would be designed to minimize water turbidity and exposure of any potential 
pollutants to Bay water. Most San Francisco Bay dredging is done by clam- 
shell dredge or hydraulic dredging. 

The type of potential contaminants, if any, from fill to be exposed cannot 
be determined until additional sampling of the potentially exposed area is 
done and appropriate chemical and biological tests are performed. Since 
biological and chemical processes alter the fill over time, it is not ap- 
propriate to do these tests now when the removal of the fill may not take 

179 



VIII. Comments and Responses 



place for ten years. The tests would be done before the fill is removed. 
Leachates can be contained by such measures as use of fine clay barrier 
layers or use of special membranes impermeable to pollutants. The specific 
measures appropriate to the SFCT-South, if any should be needed, would be 
determined in consultation with staff of the Regional Water Quality Control 
Board. 

The second right hand H on p. 58 has been revised to read as follows: 

"Dredge spoils would be deposited 
at a site approved by the Army 
Corps of Engineers and BCDC. BCDC 
would make a determination that 
the proposed spoils disposal site 
was consistent with Bay Plan poli- 
cies on dredging as part of is- 
suance of the required dredge dis- 
posal permit." 

The last two sentences of Mitigation Measure No. 2 on EIR p. 131 have been 
revised to read: 

"Disposal would be at the Alcatraz site or other site designated by the 
Corps as appropriate and determined by BCDC to be consistent with the Bay 
Plan." 

As stated on DEIR p. 22, line 5, no project-related dredging would occur 
west of the Third Street Bridge where Mr. Cole's property is located. 

As stated on DEIR p. 38, the present BCDC maintenance dredging permit for 
Islais Creek states that maintenance dredging will not destai^ilize adjacent 
fill. 



180 



VIII. Comments and Responses 

NOTES 

1. Letter from Eugene L. Gartland, Executive Director, Port of San Fran- 
cisco, to Alan Pendleton, Executive Director, BCDC, December 23, 1985, 
available for public review at the Dept. of City Planning. 

2. Phil Kern, BCDC, telephone conversation of December 23, 1985. 

FUTURE IMPACTS 
Comments : 

"...the [project] as stated does not impact on our area. I would like to 
emphasize, we did not oppose the report. But since it's in the nature of 
large scale development that it is possible a future impact will occur." 
(John Porter, public hearing comments) 

Response: 

The purpose of an EIR is to attempt to predict future impacts. Since the 
commentor did not indicate any specific concerns about impacts not addressed 
in the EIR no response is possible. 

MITIGATION MEASURES 
Comments : 

"We generally support the above referenced project, and support the conti- 
nuation and improvement of the maritime industry of the Port of San Fran- 
cisco. We also look with particular favor on the plans to improve the habi- 
tat on Pier 98 and open it for public access, and look forward to support- 
ing these plans before BCDC and other agencies. 

"However, we do have a few concerns about certain aspects of the project. 

"The west end of Islais Creek (west of the Third Street bridge) is identi- 
fied in both the San Francisco Greenbelt Map and the revised Open Space 
Element of the General Plan as open space. While the project proposal 



181 



VIII. Comments and Responses 



seems to recognize the value of this area for open space uses (EIR, p. 59), 
it does not do anything to implement this policy. Inasmuch as the project 
will intensify the maritime use of Islais Creek east of the new drawbridge 
it would be appropriate to mitigate this impact by funding, or contributing 
to the funding, of habitat and public access improvements at the West end 
of Islais Creek. Given the increased revenues that the Port will derive 
from this project, such mitigation should not not prove burdensome... 

"...The EIR is vague about the precise mitigation measures for building on 
fill ('settlement mitigation'). Construction 'in accordance with recommen- 
dations of .. .structural engineers and/or from geotechnical consultants' is 
rather open-ended, and could result in significant impacts of its own. 
Such impacts must be considered in this EIR." (Zach Cowan, Greenbelt Con- 
gress, written comments of November 21, 1985) 

Response : 

The property at the west end of Islais Creek that is referred to is all in 
private hands. The San Francisco Clean Water program will probably develop 
the public access facilities in this area in connection with a BCDC permit 
expected to be issued during the next two years. From the area designated 
as open space in the Recreation and Open Space Element to the Third Street 
Bridge, the property on the north side of Islais Creek is private property 
except for the Port-owned Seawall lot 354 (176,000 sq.ft. including unpaved 
city street right-of-way) which is now leased for maritime back-up opera- 
tions. The south side of this portion of Islais Creek is entirely in private 
hands. The Port hojds BCDC permit 19-80 for development of public access 
facilities at Pier 88 in connection with* construction of a rail trestle 



182 



VIII. Comments and Responses 



along the south edge of the Creek between Rankin Street and 1-280. A deci- 
sion to construct this rail trestle has not been made yet by the Port. 

See Comments and Responses pp. 165-171 for further dicussion of subsidence 
and mitigation thereof. 

ALTERNATIVES 
Comments : 

"Would it be possible for the Port to send its railroad cars across the Bay 
by barge, such as Santa Fe has used for years? If the East Bay terminal 
was convenient enough maybe the barge could even be a commute vehicle also." 
(Raymond Bright, written comments of 25 November 1985) 

"...there is a discussion in this report that there may be a second bridge 
put across.. .Islais Creek, and it is described that this bridge is known to 
be a drawbridge, although initially it was supposed to be a fixed bridge. 
Although it is currently in the report as a drawbridge, I would like to 
point out that it would have a severe adverse impact on our community there 
if it did become a fixed bridge, because our commercial fishing vessels, of 
which there are three of them, would not be able to get in and out of the 
creek. 

"Also, our boats need every two to three years to go to a boat yard for nor- 
mal maintenance, and we couldn't even get our boats in and out of the Creek 
if there was a fixed bridge there." (John Porter, public hearing comments) 

Response: 

Barges are not suitable for the present and anticipated volumes of contain- 
erized cargo at the SECT because each barge can only handle a maximum of 4 
rail cars and the SECT handles over 200,000 containers a year. Barges also 



183 



VIII. Comments and Responses 



cannot get close enough to eastbound rail lines, which is part of the rea- 
son for an intermodal freight handling facility. 

If a fixed bridge were constructed, Islais Creek v^ould be closed to naviga- 
tion west of the bridge, as indicated on DEIR p. 138, and any boats now 
using this area would have to use some other berthing area. 

STAFF INITIATED TEXT AMENDMENTS 

The second sentence of the complete on EIR p. 39 has been updated to read: 

"One ship with coconut oil from the Phillipines used to go up Islais Creek 
every one or two months to the copra processing plant west of the Islais 
Creek Bridge; this plant closed June 29, 1985, because a drought in the 
Phillipines has affected the product shipped to the facility, and the plant 
may be sold to another owner. ^a" 

The following footnote has been added to EIR p. 41: 

"3a. Triumph Marketing, 'Bay Belt Rail Service Study,' November, 1985." 

EIR Page 66, line 12 has been clarified to read "person round trips." 

The following text has been added at the end of the second complete !I on 
EIR p. 80: 

"Recent projects proposed in the project area, not included in Tables 22 and 
23, are East India Basin Industrial Park (83.121E, Negative Declaration 
issued November 8, 1985) and Galvez Bay Industrial Park (85.660E, applica- 
tion filed December 19, 1985). Analysis performed for the East India Basin 
Industrial Park indicates that with these additional projects, the Level of 
Service at Third Street and Evans Avenue would remain at LOS B during the PM 
peak (see Table 26, page 86)." 

184 



IX. Authors and Persons Consulted 



CHAPTER IX. EIR AUTHORS AND PERSONS CONSULTED 



EIR AUTHORS 



San Francisco Department of City Planning 

Office of Environmental Review 

450 McAllister Street, Fifth Floor 

San Francisco, CA 94102 

Environmental Review Officer: Barbara Sahm 
EIR Coordinator: Catherine Bauman 

EIR CONSULTANTS 



Bendix Environmental Research, Inc. 
1390 Market Street, Suite 902 
San Francisco, CA 94102 
Project Manager: 

Seli na Bendix, Ph.D. 
Contri butors: 

Gilbert G. Bendix, P.E. 

Terence McManus 

Beatrice Thys 

B. Douglas Wilson 



Holton Associates 
1824 Fourth Street 
Berkeley, CA 94710 

Booker Holton, Ph.D. 

Wi 1 li am Kanemoto 
Biological Impacts, Permits 

Wil li am Marconi , P.E. 
101 Mountain Springs Avenue 
San Francisco, CA 94114 
Transportation Impacts 

PROJECT SPONSOR 



Theresa Hughes & Associates 
5224 Kales Avenue 
Oakland, CA 94618 
Theresa Hughes 
Economi cs 



Charles M. Salter Associates, Inc. 
930 Montgomery Street 
San Francisco, CA 94133 

Thomas S. Lillo 
Train Noise Impacts 



EIP Associates 

319 Eleventh Street 

San Francisco, CA 94103 

Richard Pollack, Ph.D. 
Air Impacts 



Port of San Francisco 

Ferry Building 

San Francisco, CA 94111 

Eugene L. Gartland, Executive 

Di rector 
Randall S. Rossi, Ph.D., 

Planning, Environmental, 
Regulatory Consultant 
Velio Kiisk, Port Engineer 
Ronald Stone, Director of Marketing 



Arthur M. Osborne, Director, 

Engineering and Maintenance 

Cliff Jarrard, P.E., Administrative 

Engi neer 
James Read 

Lindbergh Low, Project Engineer 
W. Bowden, Chief Wharfinger 
Skip Zeller 
Louise Anderson 



185 



IX. Authors and Persons Consulted 



General Consultant to Port 

Vi eke rman/Zach a ry /Mi 1 ler 

330 Franklin Street, Fourth Floor 

Oakland, CA 94607 

M. John Vickerman, Jr., Pres, 
Eugene M. Blazick, Project Mgr. 
Kenneth Hughes 



ICTF Consultant 

Sverdrup & Parcel and Associates, 
Inc. 

417 Montgomery Street 
San Francisco, CA 94104 
Ronald N. Zimmer, P.E. 



CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO STAFF CONSULTED 



Department of Public Works 

2323 Army Street 

San Francisco, CA 94124 

David Conci, Sr. Stationary 

Engi neer 



Fire Department 

260 Golden Gate Avenue 

San Francisco, CA 94102 

Deputy Chief Gerald Cullen 

Lt. William Utikol 

Michael Patterson, Port Fire 

Marshal 1 



Deputy Mayor James Lazarus 
City Hall 

San Francisco, CA 94102 



Division of Traffic Engineering 
460 McAllister Street 
San Francisco, CA 94102 

Scott Shoaf 

Stanley Chin 

Police Department 

Potrero Station 

2300 Third Street 

San Francisco, CA 94107 

Officer Michael Mahoney 



San Francisco Health Department 

101 Grove Street 

San Francisco, CA 94102 

Robert Navarro, Chief Paramedic 

Clean Water Program 

770 Golden Gate 

San Francisco, CA 94102 

Harold Coffee 

Louis Olivari 



OTHER AGENCIES AND PERSONS CONSULTED 



BAAOMD 

939 Ellis Street 
San Francisco, CA 94109 
B. de Boisblanc 

BCDC 

30 Van Ness Avenue 

San Francisco, CA 94102 

Philip Kern 

Margit Hind 



TNT Marine 
Pier 46B 

San Francisco, CA 
Dick McKnight 

Westar Towboat Service 
Pier 46B 

San Francisco, CA 
Mary McMi 1 Ian 



186 



IX. Authors and Persons Consulted 



OTHER AGENCIES AND PERSONS CONSULTED, Cont. 



Bridge Section 
U.S. Coast Guard 
Bldg. 51-3 
Government Island 
Alameda, CA 94501 

Wayne Ti 1 1 

Rose Guerra 

MTC 

Metrocenter 
101 8th Street 
Oakland, CA 94607 
Jeff Georgevich 

California Dept. of Fish & Game 
411 Burgess Drive 
Menlo Park, CA 94025 

T. Wooster 

Phil li p Swartzel 1 

Port of Oakland 
66 Jack London Square 
Oakland, CA 
Ray Boyle 

Port of Richmond 
P.O. Box 4046 
Richmond, CA 94804 
Sal Bose, Director 

Port of Benicia 
P.O. Box 315 

Benicia, CA 94510 
Adam Vincent 

Postal Service 
Industrial Engineering Dept. 
1300 Evans Avenue 
San Francisco, CA 
Roger Parvi n 

U.S. Customs Service 
District Director 
San Francisco, CA 

Paul Andrews 
Western Tug & Barge Co. 
Pier 9 

San Francisco, CA 
Dennis Kelfoil 



California Stevedore & Ballast Co. 
501 Army Street 
San Francisco, CA 

Ian Back 

Tom Kohler 



Stevedoring Services of America 
465 California Street 
San Francisco, CA 
Peter Klestoff 



Dillingham Corp. 

2 Embarcadero Center 

San Francisco, CA 



Faustug Corp. 
Pier 15 

San Francisco, CA 
Tom Faust 

Emcon Associates 
90 Archer Street 
San Jose, CA 95112 
Robert Von Hewit 

PG&E 

245 Market Street 
San Francisco, CA 
Ernest Braun 

Harbor Tug & Barge 
Pier 9 

San Francisco, CA 
Brian Lodge 



Fukada Salvage X Marine Works Co. Ltd. 
2579 Heatherstone Drive 
San Rafael , CA 94903 

Gloria Kaga 
American Navigation 
Pier 26 

San Francisco, CA 
Kelley Fallon 



187 



IX. Authors and Persons Consulted 



OTHER AGENCIES AND PERSONS CONSULTED, Cont. 



Baker Commodities, Inc. 
Pier 92 

San Francisco, CA 
Gene Riddle 



S.F. Community Recyclers 
796 Elizabeth Street 
San Francisco, CA 94110 
Jane Olsen 



Tidewater Sand & Gravel 
4501 Tidewater Ave. 
Oakland, CA 94601 
Mrs. E.P. Seaborn 



Co. 



Continental Grain Co. 
P.O. Box 24096 
San Francisco, CA 94124 
Don Strenik 



American President Lines 
1395 M.ddle Harbor Road 
Oakland, CA 
Tim Titus 



188 



X. Distribution List 



CHAPTER X. DISTRIBUTION LIST 



**FEDERAL AND STATE AGENCIES** 



U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 
211 Main St. 
San Francisco, CA 94105 
# Attn : Roderick A. Chisolm 

U.S. Coast Guard 
Bldg. 51-3 
Government Island 
Alameda, CA 94501 
Attn : Wayne Till 

U.S. Customs Service 

District Office 

555 Battery St. 

San Francisco, CA 94111 

Attn : Paul Andrews 

U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service 
Sacramento Endangered Species Office 
1230 N St., 14th Floor 
Sacramento, CA 95814 
Attn : Jack Williams, Section Chief 

CA Air Resources Board 
General Projects Section 
P.O. Box 2815 
Sacramento, CA 95812 
Attn: Don Rake 

CA Archaeological Survey 
Northwest Information Center 
Dept. of Anthropology 
Sonoma State University 
Rohnert Park, CA 94928 
Attn : Christian Gerike 

CA Department of Boating & 

Waterways 
1629 S St. 

Sacramento, CA 95814 
Attn : William H. I vers, 
Di rector 



CA Department of Fish & Game 
411 Burgess Drive 
Menlo Park, CA 94025 
Attn : Philip Swartzell 

Public Utilities Commission 
Railroad Operations & Safety Branch 
926 "J" Street, Room 1408 
Sacramento, CA 95814 
Attn : Michael Burke 

CalTrans 

P.O. Box 7310 

San Francisco, CA 94120 

# Attn : Wallace J. Rothbart, 

District CEQA Coordinator 

State Lands Commission 
1807 13th St. 
Sacramento, CA 95814 
Attn : Rosanna Horton 

State Office of Intergovernmental 

Management 
State Clearinghouse 
1400 10th St. 
Sacramento, CA 95819 

# Office of Planning and Research 
1400 10th Street 
Sacramento, CA 95819 

Attn : John B. Ohanian 

Chief Deputy Planner 



**MEMBERS OF CONGRESS** 



Representative Barbara Boxer 

901 Irwin St. 

San Rafael, CA 94901 

Representative Sala Burton 
450 Golden Gate Ave. 
San Francisco, CA 94102 



189 



X. Distribution List 



Senator Alan Cranston 
45 Polk St. 

San Francisco, CA 94102 

Senator Pete Wi 1 son 
450 Golden Gate Avenue 
San Francisco, CA 94102 



**REGI0NAL AGENCIES** 



ABAG 

P.O. Box 2050 
Oakland, CA 94604 
Attn : Ann Berry 

BAAQMD 

939 Ellis St. 

San Francisco, CA 94109 

• Attn : Peter Hess 

BCDC 

30 Van Ness Ave. 

San Francisco, CA 94102 

Attn : Phil Kern 

Metropolitan Transportation 

Commi ssi on 
101 8th St. 
Oakland, CA 94607 

# Attn : Jeff Georgevich 

RWQCB 

nil Jackson St., 6040 
Oakland, CA 94607 
Attn : Steven I. Morse 
Senior Engineer 



**CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO** 



Bureau of Building Inspection 
450 McAllister St. 
San Francisco, CA 94102 
Attn : Frank Lew, 

Acting Superintendent 

City Attorney's Office 
Room 206, City Hall 
San Francisco, CA 94102 
Attn : Paula Jesson, Deputy City 
Attorney 



Clean Water Program 
# 770 Golden Gate Avenue 
San Francisco, CA 94102 
Attn : Harold Coffee 

Landmarks Preservation Advisory Board 

450 McAllister St. 

San Francisco, CA 94102 

Attn : Jonathan Malone 

Mayor's Economic Development Council 

100 Larkin St. 

San Francisco, CA 94102 

Attn : William Witte, Director 

Public Utilities Commission 
949 Presidio Ave., Room 150 
San Francisco, CA 94115 
Attn : Tom Jordan, Director 
Bureau of Services 

Public Utilities Commission 

Bureau of Energy Conservation 

110 McAllister Street 

San Francisco, CA 94102 

Attn : Joseph Johnson, Director 

Recreation & Park Department 

McLaren Lodge 

Golden Gate Park 

Fell and Stanyan Streets 

San Francisco, CA 94117 

Attn : Deborah Learner 

San Francisco City Planning Commission 

450 McAllister St. 

San Francisco, CA 94102 

Attn : Lee Woods 

Toby Rosenblatt, President 

Ri chard Al len 

Susan Bierman 

Roger Boas 

Bernice Hemphill 

Norman Karasick, Alt. 

Dr. Yoshio Nakashima 

Douglas G. Wright, Alt. 

San Francisco Port Commission 

Port of San Francisco 

Ferry Building 

San Francisco, CA 94111 

Attn : Dr. Arthur Coleman, President 

James Rudden, Vice President 

Anne W. Halsted 

James R^ Herman 
Gordon Lau 



190 



X. Distribution List 



San Francisco Dept. of Public Works 

Bureau of Engineering 

Division of Streets and Highways 

45 Hyde St., Room 222 

San Francisco, CA 94102 

Attn : Tim Molinare 

San Francisco Dept. of Public Works 
Mechanical Engineering Section 
45 Hyde St., Room 222 
San Francisco, CA 94102 
Attn : Vijay K. Gupta 

San Francisco Dept. of Public Works 
Traffic Engineering Division 
460 McAllister Street 
San Francisco, CA 94102 
Attn: Scott Shoaf 

SFFD 

Div. of Planning and Research 
260 Golden Gate Ave. 
San Francisco, CA 94102 
Attn : Chief Gerald Cullen 

SFFD 

Div. of Fire Protection 

& Investigation 
260 Golden Gate Ave. 
San Francisco, CA 94102 
Attn : Lt. Michael Patterson 

San Francisco Municipal Railway 
MUNI Planning Division 
949 Presidio Ave., Room 204 
San Francisco, CA 94115 
Attn : Peter Straus 

San Francisco Real Estate Dept. 
25 Van Ness Ave, 4th Floor 
San Francisco, CA 94102 
Attn : Wallace Wortman, 

Director of Property 

Water Department 

San Francisco City Distrib. Division 
425 Mason St. 
San Francisco, CA 94102 
Attn : James Cooney, 
Manager 



**NEIGHB0RING CITIES** 



City of At he rt on 

91 Ashfield Road 

Atherton, CA 94025 

Attn : Ross Hubbard, City Manager 

Belmont Planning Department 
1365 5th Ave. 
Belmont, CA 94002 
Attn : Elaine Costello, 
Planning Director 

Brisbane Planning Department 
44 Visitation Ave. 
Brisbane, CA 94005 
Attn : Jane McCoy 

Burlingame Planning Department 
501 Primrose Road 
Burlingame, CA 94010 
Attn : Margaret Monroe, 
Planning Director 

Menlo Park Planning Department 
701 Laurel St. 
Menlo Park, CA 94025 
Attn : Ken Clark, Planner 

Mi 11 brae Planning Department 
601 Magnolia Ave. 
Millbrae, CA 94030 
Attn : Ed Moore, 

Planning Consultant 

Mountain View Planning Department 
444 Castro St. 
Mountain View, CA 94039 
Attn : Gail Collins, 
Urban Planner 

Palo Alto Planning Department 
P.O. Box 10250 
Palo Alto, CA 94303 
Attn : Sarah Cheney, 

Associate Planner 

Redwood City Planning Department 
1017 Middlefield Rd. 
Redwood City, CA 94063 
Attn : Joel Patterson, 
Senior Planner 



191 



X, Distribution List 



San Bruno Planning Department 
567 El Cami no Real 
San Bruno, CA 94066 
Attn : Mike Brimer, Director 
of Planning & Building 

City of San Carl os 
666 Elm St. 
San Carlos, CA 94070 
Attn : Warren Shafer, 
City Manager 

# City of San Carlos 
Poli ce Department 
666 Elm Street 

San Carlos, CA 94070 
Attn : Owen McGuigan 

Chief of Police 

San Jose Planning Department 
801 North 1st St., Room 400 
San Jose, CA 95110 
Attn : Brad Pearson, 
Senior Planner 

City of San Mateo Planning Dept. 
330 West 20th St. 
San Mateo, CA 94403 
Attn: Barbara Heinrich, 

Environmental Planner 

City of Santa Clara Planning Dept. 
1500 Warburton 
Santa Clara, CA 95050 
Attn : Art Henriques, 
Senior Planner 

# South County Fire Department 
666 Elm Street 

San Carlos, CA 94070 
Attn : Gary W. Schmitz, 
Fi re Chief 



South San Francisco Planning Dept. 
P.O. Box 711 

South San Francisco, CA 94083 
Attn : Jean T. Smith, 

Planning Director 

Sunnyvale Planning Department 
P.O. Box 60607 
Sunnyvale, CA 94088 
• Attn : William F. Powers, Director 
Community Development 



**GR0UPS AND INDIVIDUALS** 



AIA 

San Francisco Chapter 

790 Market St. 

San Francisco, CA 94102 

AFL-CIO 

National Maritime Union 

91 Drumm St, 

San Francisco, CA 94111 

Alice Suet Yee Bark ley 
Bennet & Barkley 

100 California St., Suite 970 
San Francisco, CA 94111 

Bay Area Council 

348 World Trade Center 

San Francisco, CA 94111 

Albert Beck 

c/o Geography Department 
California State University, Chico 
Chico, CA 95929 

Tony Blaczek 

Finance Dept. Col dwell Banker 
1 Embarcadero Center, 23rd Floor 
San Francisco, CA 94111 

Georgia Brittan 

870 Market St., Room 1119 

San Francisco, CA 94102 

Brobeck, Phleger, Harrison 
1 Market Plaza 
San Francisco, CA 94105 
Attn : Susan R. Diamond 

Michael Buck 

1333 35th Avenue 

San Francisco, CA 94122 

Dale Carlson 

369 Pine St., #800 

San Francisco, CA 94122 

Charter Commercial Brokerage Co. 
MaVket Research Dept. 

101 California St., Suite 900 
San Francisco, CA 94111 

• 



192 



X. Distribution List 



Chickering & Gregory 

3 Embarcadero Center, 23rd Floor 

San Francisco, CA 94111 

Attn : Kent Soule 

# Raymond D. Chong, P.E. 
Civil Engineer 

4027 Vale Avenue 
Oakland, CA 94619 

Coalition for San Francisco 

Neighbors 
Doris Murphy 
175 Yukon St. 
San Francisco, CA 94114 

Joseph Cortiz 
2853 22nd St. 
San Francisco, CA 94110 

# Zach Cowan, Director 

San Franisco Chapter of the 

Greenbelt Congress 

66 Mint Street 

San Francisco, CA 94103 

Cushman & Wakefield of California 

Bank of America Center 

555 California St., Suite 2700 

San Francisco, CA 94104 

Attn: James A. Hogland 

Calvin Dare 

Cushman & Wakefield 

555 California St., Suite 2700 

San Francisco, CA 94104 

Alexis Diamondidis 

#58 Varennes 

San Francisco, CA 94133 

James S. Dielschneider 

258-B Red Rock Way 

San Francisco, CA 94131 

DKS Associates 

1419 Broadway, Suite 700 

Oakland, CA 94612-2069 

Rita Dorst 

RB International Services 
9 Boston Ship Plaza 
San Francisco, CA 94111 



Downtown Association 

582 Market St. 

San Francisco, CA 94111 

Michael Dyett 
Bl ayney-Dyett 
70 Zoe St. 

San Francisco, CA 94103 

EIP Associates 

319 nth St. 

San Francisco, CA 94103 

Attn : Cathleen Galloway Brown 

Environmental Planning & Research, Inc. 

649 Front St. 

San Francisco, CA 94111 

Attn : Leslie de Boer 

Environmental Science Associates 

760 Harrison St. 

San Francisco, CA 94107 

Attn : Avril To 1 ley 

Farella, Braun & Martel 
235 Montgomery St. 
San Francisco, CA 94104 
Attn : Sandra Lambert 

Friends of the Earth 
1045 Sansome St. #404 
San Francisco CA 94111 
Attn : Connie Parrish 

The Foundation for San Fran- 
cisco's Architectural Heritage 
2007 Franklin St. 
San Francisco, CA 94111 

Friends of the Port 
Ferry Building 
San Francisco, CA 94111 
Attn : Janet H. Davis 

Executive Director 

Fuller Commercial Brokerage 
353 Sacramento St., Suite 500 
San Francisco, CA 94111 
Attn: Kenneth T. Sproul 

Thomas N. Galante, President 
Bayview Merchants Association Inc. 
4947 3rd St. 
San Francisco, CA 94124 



193 



X, Distribution List 



Gensler S Associates 
550 Kearney St. 
San Francisco, CA 94103 
Attn : Jean Wi nsl ow 

Charles T. Gill 
The Aspen Group West, Inc. 
505 Sansome St., Suite 1005 
San Francisco, CA 94111 

Goldfarb & Litman 
491 9th St. 
Oakland, CA 94607 
Attn : Paula Crow 

Annette M. Granucci 
Commercial News Publishing Co. 
125 12th St. 
San Francisco, CA 94103 

Gruen, Gruen & Associates 

564 Howard St. 

San Francisco, CA 94105 

Donald Head X Associates 
109 Minna St., #293 
San Francisco, CA 94105 

Valerie Hersey 

Munsell Brown 

950 Battery St. 

San Francisco, CA 94111 

Sue Hestor 

4536 20th St. 

San Francisco, CA 94114 

ILWU 

1188 Franklin St. 

San Francisco, CA 94109 

ILWU Ship Scalers & Painters Local 2 

501 Army St. 

San Francisco, CA 94124 

ILWU Warehouse Local 6 
255 9th St. 

San Francisco, CA 94103 

ILWU Longshoremen Local 10 

400 North Point 

San Francisco, CA 94133 



ILWU Ship Clerks Local 34 
4 Berry St. 

San Francisco, CA 94107 

ILWU Gatemen & Watchmen Local 75 
4 Berry St. 

San Francisco, CA 94107 

ILWU Drivers Local 85 

459 Fulton St. 

San Francisco, CA 94102 

ILWU Walking Bosses Local 91 
4 Berry St. 

San Francisco, CA 94107 

Teamsters Joint Council #7 

400 Alabama St. 

San Francisco, CA 94110 

Marcel 1 a Jacobson 
2995 Summit Dr. 
Hillsborough, CA 94010 

Karl F. Kimb rough 

c/o Private Industry Council 

of San Francisco 
1748 Market St. 
San Francisco, CA 94124 

Lee & Fan 

Architecture & Planning, Inc. 
580 Market St. , Suite 300 
San Francisco, CA 94101 
Attn : Robert Fan, Jr. 

Carole Lester 

Lawyers Title Company of San Franci 

1 California St. 

San Francisco, CA 94111 

Marathon U.S. Realties, Inc. 
595 Market St., Suite 1330 
San Francisco, CA 94105 
Attn : Rolf Wheeler 

Bruce Marshall 

San Francsico MUNI Coalition 
600 Montgomery St., 13th Floor 
San Francisco, CA 94111 

• 

Oceanic Society 

San Francisco Bay Chapter 

Fort Mason 

San Francisco, CA 94123 



194 



X. Distribution List 



Page, Anderson & Turnbull 

364 Bush St. 

San Francisco, CA 94104 

Pillsbury, Madison & Sutro 
P.O. Box 7880 
San Francisco, CA 94120 
Attn : Susan Pearlstine 

Planning Analysis & Development 
530 Chestnut St. 
San Francisco, CA 94133 
Attn : Gloria Root 

Mrs. G. Bland Piatt 

310 Walnut St. 

San Francisco, CA 94118 

# John Porter 

3240 Third Street 

San Francisco, CA 94124 

Neville Price & Associates 
25 Ecker Square, Suite 1050 
San Francisco, CA 94105 

Bruce Raful 
Rothschild Cappiello 
332 Pine St., Suite 511 
San Francisco, CA 94104 

Research & Decisions Corporation 
375 Sutter St. Suite 300 
San Francisco, CA 94108 
Attn : Deborah Mc Namee 

Donald W. Rice 

Port of Los Angeles 

425 South Pal OS Verdes St. 

P.O. Box 151 

San Pedro, CA 90733-0151 

San Francisco Bar Pilots Assn. 

P.O. Box 26409 

San Francisco, CA 94126 

Attn : Captain William W. Meyer 

San Francisco Building & Construction 

Trades Council 
400 Alabama St. , Room 100 
San Francisco, CA 94110 
Attn: Stanley Smith 



San Francisco Chamber of Commerce 

465 California St. 

San Francisco, CA 94105 

Attn : Richard Morten 

San Francisco Ecology Center 

13 Columbus Ave. 

San Francisco, CA 94111 

San Francisco Labor Council 
1855 Folsom St. 
San Francsico, CA 94103 
Attn : Bernard Speckman 

San Francisco Planning & Urban 

Research Association 
312 Sutter St. 
San Francisco, CA 94108 
Attn : Waterfront Committee: 

Donald Paul Black 

Andrew Butler 

David Clark 

Steve Downs 

Boris Dramov 

Bill Duval 

Rebecca Evans 

Ruth Gravanis 

Jeffrey Grote 

Bryan Grunwald 

Sarah Hal lam 

Joy Hecht 

Bob Isaacson 

El len Johnk 

Lisa Klairmont 

Michael Marston 

Bruce Race 

Jim Ricereto 

S.D. Sicotte 

Thomas J. Tibbets 

San Francisco Tomorrow 
942 Market, Room 505 
San Francisco, CA 94102 
Attn : Tony Ki 1 roy 

John M. Sanger, Pettit & Martin 
101 California St., 35th Floor 
San Francisco, CA 94111 

Save San Francisco Bay Assn. 
2140 Shattuck Ave. 
Berkeley, CA 94707 



195 



X. Distribution List 



Sedway Cooke Associates 
360 Pacific Ave. , 3rd Floor 
San Francisco, CA 94111 

Richard Seeley & Co. 
1814 Franklin St., #503 
Oakland, CA 94612 

Shartsis Freise & Ginsburg 
255 California St., 9th Floor 
San Francisco, CA 94111 
Attn : Dave Kremer 

Skidmore, Owings & Merrill 
1 Maritime Plaza 
San Francisco, CA 94111 
Attn : Jerry Goldberg 

Robert Snook 

Wei Is Fargo Bank 

475 Langton St. 

San Francisco, CA 94111 

Mark R. Sol it 
Embarcadero Center, Ltd. 
4 Embarcadero, Suite 2600 
San Francisco, CA 94111 

South of Market Alliance 

74 Langton St. 

San Francisco, CA 94103 

Wayne E. Stiefvater, President 

Appraisal Consultants 

701 Sutter St. 

San Francisco, CA 94109 

Robert S. Tandler 

Steef el , Levitt & Weiss 

1 Embarcadero Center, 29th Floor 

San Francisco, CA 94111 

Carol latum 

Bay view Hunter's Point Foundation 

for Community Improvement 
5033 3rd St. 
San Francisco, CA 94124 

Roger Teter 

Cahill Construction Company 
425 California St., Suite 2300 
San Francisco, CA 94103 



Jerry Tone, Loan Officer 
Real Estate Industries Group 
Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. 
475 Sansome St., 19th Floor 
San Francisco, CA 94111 

Timothy Tosta 

Tosta & Browning Law Corporation 
785 Market St., 14th Floor 
San Francisco, CA 94102 

Kathy Van Velsor 

19 Chula Lane 

San Francisco, CA 94114 

Stephen Weiker 

899 Pine St., #1610 

San Francisco, CA 94108 

Cal vi n Welch 

Council of Community Housing 

Organization 
409 Clayton St. 
San Francisco, CA 94117 

Howard Wexler 

235 Montgomery St., 7th Floor 
San Francisco, CA 94104 

Eunice Wil lette 

1323 Gilman Ave. 

San Francisco, CA 94124 

Marie Zeller 

Whi sler-Patri 

590 Folsom St. 

San Francisco, CA 94105 



**ADJACENT PROPERTY OWNERS** 



Air Filters Sales & Serv. Co. 

1500 Davidson Ave. 

San Francisco, CA 94124 

Baker Commodities 
Pier 92 

San Francisco, CA 94124 
Attn: Gene Riddle 

r- 

Wi 1 li am Banker 

351 California St. 

San Francisco, Ca 94104 



196 



X. Distribution List 



Robert & Nancy Berke 

2227 31st Ave. 

San Francisco, CA 94116 

Bone! 1 i Enterprises 

101 Cargo Way 

San Francisco, CA 94124 

Armand & Betty Bosc 

1570 Burke Ave. 

San Francisco, CA 94124 

Ray Bright 
• 1822 20th St. 

San Francisco, CA 94107 

Broadway Mechanical Contractors 

1790 Yosemite Ave. 

San Francisco, CA 94124 

Murray G. Cole 

1650 Davidson Ave. 

San Francisco, CA 94124 

California Stevedore & Ballast 
501 Army St. 
San Francisco, CA 94124 
Attn : Tom Kohler 

Continental Grain Company 

Bay View Station 

P.O. Box 24096 

San Francisco, CA 94124 

Attn : Don Strenik 

Crow-Spieker San Carlos etc, 
2180 Sand Hill Rd. 
Menlo Park, CA 94025 

Rick & Linda Der 

50 Mendel 1 St. #10 

San Francisco, CA 94124 

Kim Dong & Sun Kyung 
82 Penhurst Ave. 
Daly City, CA 94015 

E.G. & K.L. Ekren 

50 Mendell ST. #12 

San Francisco, CA 94124 

Federated Metals Corp. 

1901 Army St. 

San Francisco, Ca 94124 



Russell X Evelyn Fieber TRS 
c/o Callan, Stroud, & Dale 
155 Sansome St. 
San Francisco, CA 94104 

Victor Furtado 
PG&E 

77 Beale St. 

San Francisco, CA 94106 

Martin & John Gaehwiler 

1700 Illinois St. 

San Francisco, Ca 94124 

Eugene Garf inkle 

300 Montgomery St. #1060 

San Francisco, CA 94104 

Golden West Broadcasters 
950 California Street 
San Francisco, CA 94108 
Attn : James Meyers, 

Vice President & Gen. Manager 

Granex Corp. USA 

1301 Army St. 

San Francisco, CA 94124 

Grosjean Callaghan Inv. Co. 

1875 Marin St. 

San Francisco, CA 94124 

Thomas A. Guilfoy 

1234 Howard St. 

San Francisco, CA 94103 

Habenicht & Howlett 

888 Marin St. 

San Francisco, CA 94124 

Long-Chang Hsaio & Fei Feng 

562 39th Ave. 

San Francisco, CA 94124 

Vi ctor Johnson 
1430 16th Ave. 
San Francisco, CA 94122 

Wen Liao & Kang Mei Kay 
20815 NW Chiloquin Ct. 
Portland, OR 97229 

Man-U Imports 

50 Mendell St. #7 

San Francisco, CA 94124 



197 



X. Distribution List 



Gino & Premina Mazini 
1612 Balboa Way 
Burlingame, CA 94010 

Richard B. Meyer et al . 

1580 Custer Ave. 

San Francisco, CA 94124 

Mizono Brothers 
1575 Burke Ave. 
San Francisco, Ca 94124 

Larry Montarano 

P.O. Box 31572 

San Francisco, CA 94131 

Harold & Jo Ann Morgan 

1550 Evans Ave. 

San Francisco, CA 94124 

Joseph Musto Sons Co. 

1280 Columbus Ave. 

San Francisco, CA 94133 

Occidental Life Insurance 

Company of California 
P.O. Box 27003 
Richmond, VA 32261 

Emily Peck 

3303 Wilshire Blvd. 

Los Angeles, CA 90010 

Joseph Ratto 
640 Army St. 
San Francisco, CA 94124 

Reynolds Metals Co. 
P.O. Box 27003 
Richmond, VA 23261 

Robert Salvarezza 
110 Braener Dr. 
Hillsborough, CA 94010 

San Francisco Redevelopment 
Agency 

939 Ellis St., 4th Floor 
San Francisco, CA 94.109 
Attn : Thomas Conrad 

William & Susan Sanchez 

1500 Burke Ave. 

San Francisco, CA 94124 



San Francisco Community Recyclers 

796 Elizabeth St. 

San Francisco, CA 94110 

Attn : Jane Olsen 

San Francisco Land Improvement Co. 
1 Santa Fe PZ #316 
5200 East Sheila St. 
Los Angeles, CA 90040 

John & Ruth Smith 
50 Mendel 1 St. #5 
San Francisco, CA 94124 

William & Claire Spencer 
1450 Buckingham Way 
Hillsborough, CA 94010 

Tidewater Sand & Gravel Co. 
4501 Tidewater Ave. 
Oakland, CA 94601 
Attn : Ms. E.P. Seaborn 

Union Pacific Railroad 
% R.W. Ridinger 
1717 Middle Harbor Rd. 
Oakland, CA 94607 

Ping Leung Wong 

1032 Silver Ave. 

San Francisco, CA 94134 

# Gary Young, Vice President 
Royal Tallow & Soap Division 
Darling-Delaware Co., Inc. 
429 Amador St. (Pier 92) 
San Francisco, CA 94124 



**MEDIA** 



San Francisco Bay Guardian 

2700 19th St. 

San Francisco, CA 94110 

Attn : Patrick Douglas, City Editor 

San Francisco Business Journal 
635 Sacramento St., Suite 310 
San Francisco, CA 94111 
At£n : Kirstin R. Downey 



198 



X. Distribution List 



San Francisco Chronicle 
925 Mission St. 
San Francisco, CA 94103 
Attn : Evelyn Hsu 

San Francisco Examiner 
110 5th St. 

San Francisco, CA 94103 
Attn: Gerald Adams 

San Francisco Progress 
851 Howard St. 
San Francisco, CA 94103 
Attn: E. Cahill Mahoney 



The Sun Reporter 

1366 Turk St. 

San Francisco, CA 94115 

Tenderloin Times 
146 Leavenworth St. 
San Francisco, CA 94102 
Attn: Rob Waters 



**LIBRARIES** 



Documents Library 
City Library - Civic Center 
San Francisco, CA 94102 
Attn : Faith Van Li ere 

City Library - Waden Branch 
5075 3rd St. 
San Francisco, CA 94124 

City Library - Potrero Branch 
1616 20th St. 
San Francisco, CA 94107 

Environmental Protection Agency Library 

215 Fremont St. 

San Francisco, CA 94105 

Attn : Jean Circiello 

Jonsson Library of Government Documents 
Stanford University Libraries 
State & Local Documents Division 
Stanford, CA 94305 

Government Publications Department 

San Francisco State University 

1630 Holloway Ave. 

San Francisco, CA 94132 

Attn : Dora Ng 



Hastings College of the Law - Library 
200 Mc Al lister St. 
San Francisco, CA 94102 

Institute of Governmental Studies 
1209 Moses Hall 
University of California 
Berkeley, CA 94820 



199 



XI. Certification Motion 



File No. S5.123E 

San Francisco Container Terminal 



SAN FRANCISCO 
CITY PLANNING COMMISSION 
MOTION NO. 10564 



ADOPTING FINDINGS RELATED TO THE CERTIFICATION OF A FINAL SUPPLEMENTAL 
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT FOR THE SAN FRANCISCO CONTAINER TERMINAL. 

MOVED, That the San Francisco City Planning Commission ("Commission") 
hereby CERTIFIES the Final Environmental Impact Report ("FEIR") identified as 
85.123E "San Francisco Container Terminal," based upon the following findings: 

1. The City and County of San Francisco, acting through the Department of 
City Planning ("Department"), fulfilled all procedural requirements of the 
California Environmental Quality Act (Cal. Pub. Res. Code Section 21000 et 
seq., "CEQA"), the State CEQA Guidelines (Cal. Admin. Code Title 14 
Section 15000 et seq ., "CEQA Guidelines") and Chapter 31 of the San 
Francisco Administrative Code ("Chapter 31") by the following procedures: 

a The Department determined that an EIR was required and provided 

public notice of the determination by publication in a newspaper of 
general circulation in June 21, 1985. 

b. On October 18, 1985, the Department published the Draft Environmental 
Impact Report ("DEIR") and provided notice to the public in a 
newspaper of general circulation of the availability of the DEIR for 
public review and comment and of the date and time of the 
Commission's public hearing on the DEIR. This notice was mailed to 
the Oepartujent's list of persons requesting such notice. 

c. Notices of availability of the DEIR and of the date and time of the 
public hearing were posted near the project site by Department staff 
on October 18, 1985. 

d. On October 18, 1985, copies of the DEIR were mailed or otherwise 
delivered to a list of persons requesting it, to those noted on the 
distribution list in the DEIR, to adjacent property owners, and to 
other government agencies; the latter both directly and through the 
State Clearinghouse. 

e. Notice of Completion was filed with the State Secretary of Resources 
on October 18, 1985. 

2. The CooBiission held a duly advertised public hearing on the DEIR on 
November 21, 1985, at which opportunity was given for, and public comment 
was received on, the DEIR. The period for receipt of written comments 
ended December 21, 1985. 

3. The Department* prepared responses to comments on environmental issues 
received at the public hearing and in *g^iting during the 45-day public 
review period, prepared additions to the text of the DEIR in response to 
comments received or based on additional information that became available 
during the public review period, and corrected errors in the DEIR. This 
material was presented in a "Draft Summary of Comments and Response," 
published on January 13, 1986, was distributed to the Commission and to 
all parties who coowented on the DEIR, and was available to others upon 
request at Department offices. 

200 



XI. Certification Motion 



CITY PLANNING COMMISSION 



File No. 85.123E 

San Francisco Container Terminal 

Motion No. 10554 

Page Two 



4. The FEIR has been prepared by the Department based on the OEIR and 
consultations and comments received during the review process, additional 
information that became available, and the Summary of Comments and 
Responses, all as required by law. 

5. Project environmental impact report files have been made available for 
review by the Commission and the public, and these files are part of the 
record before the Commission. 

6. On January 23, 1985, the Commission reviewed the FEIR and found that the 
contents of said report and the procedures through which it was prepared, 
publicized and reviewed all comply with the provisions of CEQA, CEQA 
Guidelines, and Chapter 31. 

7. The City Planning Commission hereby does find that the FEIR concerning 
File No. 85.123E, the San Francisco Container Terminal Modernization, is 
adequate, accurate and objective and that there are no significant 
revisions to the DEIR, hereby does CERTIFY THE COMPLETION of the Final 
Environmental Impact Report in compliance with CEQA and the CEQA 
Guildel ines. 



I hereby certify that the foregoing Motion was ADOPTED by the City 
Planning Commission. 



Lee Woods, Jr. , 
Secretary 



Ayes: 



Commisioners Allen, Bierman, Hemphill, Karasick, Nakashima, 
Rosenblatt, Wright 



Noes: 



none 



Absent: none 



277E 



201 



Appendi ces 



CHAPTER XII. APPENDICES 



Appendix A. Initial Study A-2 

Appendix B. Traffic Level of Service Definitions A-38 

Appendix C. San Francisco Air Pollutant Summary A-39 

Appendix D. Liner Services Calling the SFCT A-41 



A-1 




Appendices 

DEPARTMENT OF CITY PLANNING 450 MCALLISTER STREET • SAN FRANCISCO CALIFORNIA 94102 



NOTICE THAT AN 
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT 
IS DETERMINED TO BE REQUIRED 



Date of this Notice: June 21, 1985 



Lead Agency: City and County of San Francisco, Department of City Planning 

450 McAllister Street - 5th Floor, San Francisco, CA 94102 

Agency Contact Person: Catherine Bauman Telephone: (415) 558-5261 

Project Title: 85.123E Project Sponsor: Port of San Francisco 

San Francisco Container Terminal 

Modernization Project Contact Person: Randall Rossi 

Proiert Address- n- (415) 391-8000 

Project Address, p^g^ p^-^^ g^/gg^ j^^^.^ ^^^^^ 

Assessor's Block(s) and Lot(s): 4304 lot 2 & 4502A lot 2 

City and County: San Francisco 

Project Description: 



attached 



THIS PROJECT MAY HAVE A SIGNIFICANT EFFECT ON THE ENVIRONMENT AND AN ENVIRONMENTAL 
IMPACT REPORT IS REQUIRED. This determination is based upon the criteria of the 
Guidelines of the State Secretary for Resources, Sections 15063 (Initial Study), 15064 
(Determining Significant Effect), and 15065 (Mandatory Findings of Significance), and 
the following reasons, as documented in the Environmental Evaluation (Initial Study) for 
the project, which is attached. 



Deadline for Filing of an Appeal of this Determination to the City Planning 
Commission: July 1 , 1985 . 

An appeal requires: 1) a letter specifying the grounds for the appeal, and; 

2) a $35.00 filing fee. 




BARBARA W. SAHM, Environmental Rev lew Offi cer 



BWS:eh 

R362A 



A-2 



ER5 6/85 



Appendices 



PORT OF SAN FRANCISCO/SOUTHERN WATERFRONT IMPROVEMENTS 
DRAFT INITIAL STUDY 
85.123E 

June 21, 1985 

I. PROJECT DESCRIPTION * 

The Port of San Francisco proposes to modernize its container handling 
facilities along the southern waterfront in the area of the North and South 
Container Terminals (formerly Pier 80/Army Street Terminal and Piers 94-96, 
respectively) . 

Improvements are being proposed for the San Francisco Container Terminal 
('''SFCT) in order to accommodate projected demands of shipping lines now using 
SECT facilities and to maintain the Port's current market share of ''"con- 
tainer cargo. 

The North Container Terminal is a 69-acre site on all of Assessor's Block 
4304. The South Terminal is approximately 160 acres on all of Assessor's 
Block 4502A. Both sites are active port terminals in an M-2 (Heavy Indus- 
trial) District and a 40-X Height and Bulk District. 

The Port is proposing three cargo handling facility improvements and a 
waterfront open space area in two phases. The location of the existing and 
proposed facilities is shown on figures 1-4 on pages 3-6 (pp. A-5 - A-8). 

Phase I (see Figure 3, page 5) [Page A-7 in this EIR]: 

- Modernization of the North Terminal into a full container cargo 
facility with three container "''berths and one "''combination berth by 
demolishing two cargo sheds (approximately 400,000 sq. ft. total), 

* Please refer to the glossary located on the inside of the front and back 
covers of this DEIR for definitions of terms used throughout this study. 
Terms defined in the glossary are marked with a daggar (t) at first use. 



Appendices 



releveling the terminal yard, improving "'"backland area for container 
storage, installation of five new container cranes (three of them 
replacing existing, smaller cranes) and container retrieval equip- 
ment, construction of two 4,000 sq. ft. buildings for use by long- 
shoremen and shipping clerks, and a new entrance gate. No new 
berths would be constructed; one existing ''"breakbulk terminal would 
be converted to a container terminal. Improvements are designed to 
enable this terminal to handle existing "''throughput more efficiently. 

- A fixed bridge across Islais Creek, extending Illinois Street south- 
wards to join the North and South Terminals, to expedite rail and 
truck trips between the two terminals and to keep short-haul traffic 
off city streets. 

- A permanent "'"Intermodal Container Transfer Facility ('''ICTF) in the 
South Terminal to provide the Port with direct rail access for "'"land- 
bridge movement of containers {"''COFC and "'"TOFC). Facilities would 
include a 100,000 sq. ft. container freight station ("''CFS) and a new 
entrance gate complex. 

- an 11-acre waterfront site (Pier 98) dedicated to public access, 
recreation and open space. 

Phase II (see Figure 4, page 6) [Page A-8 in this EIR]: 

- addition of two container berths along the south side of Islais Creek, 
through conversion of an existing ''"break bulk berth and addition of a 
new berth, and installation of four new container cranes. Some 
existing fill on the south side of Islais Creek would be removed. 



A -4 



Appendices 




A-5 



Appendices 




A-6 



Appendices 




Appendices 




A-8 



Appendices 



II. SUMMARY OF POTENTIAL EFFECTS 
Significant Effects 

Some of the effects that would be generated by the proposed project could be 
significant. Impacts that require further analysis in an EIR are: 

° Land use effects of closing the Islais Creek channel west of Third 

Street as a navigable waterway, 
° Increased truck and train trips to and from the site in relation 
to traffic flow and circulation patterns; increased parking 
demand. 

° Project transportation-generated air quality effects. 
° Effects on Bay wildlife including endangered species. 
° Potential water quality impacts of removal of existing fill from 

the south side of Islais Creek. 
° Cumulative project- rel ated impacts. 

° Potential safety hazards from methane released by fill under the 
site. 

Insignificant Effects 

Some environmental effects would either be insignificant or would be miti- 
gated through measures incorporated into the project design. These require 
no further environmental analysis and will not be addressed in the EIR. 

Popul ation : No housing would be displaced. Employment generation would be 
up to about 100 jobs and would not create a substantial demand for new 
housing. ■ 



A-9 



Appendices 



Utilities/Public Services : Increased demand for public services and utili- 
ties attributable to the proposed project would not require additional 
employees or expansion of existing utility facilities. 

Geology and Seismic Hazards : Potential problems of development on landfill 
would be mitigated to insignificance by compliance with the recommendations 
resulting from site-specific geotechnical investigations. 

i 

Water Quality ; No surface water or water supplies would be affected. Bay 

waters would not be substantially affected by the increase in ship calls or j 

i 

the dredging, of Islais Creek. Runoff from impervious surfaces would | 
increase, but not significantly in comparison to the existing setting. | 

i 

Hazards : The project would not be affected by hazardous land uses. An ' 

I 

evacuation and emergency response plan would be developed by the project -1 

sponsor as part of the project. No change in the proportion of hazardous I 

I 

cargo handled is expected. 

Energy : Increased energy consunption on-site would result from diesel and ' 
gasoline fuel use by new container crane and yard equipment. Off-site ' 
energy use would result from additional truck, rail and ship cargo movement. ' 

A shift of some trips from truck to rail would result in increased energy I 

j 

efficiency per unit of cargo handled and a net decrease in energy consump- j 

tion by Pacific Coast shipping activities. ! 

I 

i 

Cultural : The project site rests entirely on Bay fill. Most of the fill 
has been placed since 1960. The probability of encountering cultural 
resources during construction would be limited. The project sponsor has 
included a mitigation measure addressing this potential impact. 



A-10 



Appendices 



A. COMPATABILITY WITH EXISTING ZONING 

AND PLANS Not Applicable Discussed 

1. Discuss any variances, special 

authorizations, or change proposed 
to the City Planning Code or Zoning 

Map, if applicable. X 



*2. Discuss any conflicts with the 

Comprehensive Plan of the City and 
County of San Francisco, if applicable. 

*3. Discuss any conflicts with any other 
adopted environmental plans and goals 
of the City or Region, if applicable. 



The project would comply with Objective 5 of the Commerce and Industry 
Element, Comprehensive Plan of the City and County of San Francisco, "Realize 
San Francisco's full maritime potential." (page 18). Modernization of 
existing port facilities and establishment of the Pier 98 public access area 
would implement Policy 1, "Develop and implement a comprehensive long-range 
maritime development program for the Port," by increasing the efficiency 
and lowering the cost of goods movement. Policy 2, "Focus investment on 
those Port features in which San Francisco has a natural advantage. Create 
competitive advantages by providing more cost efficient freight handling 
facilities," would be implemented by improvement of facilities associated 
with natural deep water access appropriate for larger cargo vessels and 
improving cost efficiency of freight handling facilities. Policy 8, "En- 
courage maritime activity which complements visitor activity and resi- 
dent recreation," would be implemented through development of the public 
Bay access facilities at Pier 98. 

The overall goal of the Central Waterfront Plan of the Comprehensive Plan 
"is to create in the Central Waterfront area a physical and economic envi- 



* Derived from State EIR Guidelines, Appendix G," normally significant effect. 

A-11 



Appendices 



ronment conducive to the retention and expansion of San Francisco's indus- 
trial and maritime activities." (page 16). The proposed project would con- 
form to Land Use Objective 1, "Strengthen and expand land uses essential to 
realizing the economic potential of the Central Waterfront." Modernization 
of container facilities would permit intensification of existing cargo 
handling activity in conformance with Land Use Policy 1, "Encourage the 
intensification and expansion of industrial and maritime uses." No conver- 
sion to nonmaritime-rel ated land use would be involved in the project, in 
conformity with Policy 2, "Preserve and protect the Central Waterfront area 
as a land base for San Francisco industry. Prevent the conversion of land 
needed for industrial or maritime activity to non-industrial use." Present 
use of Islais Creek for anchorage west of the new bridge, some of it illegal, 
by some tow boats, barges and fishing boats would cease. 

Selection of a development configuration avoiding unstable fill and min- 
imizing new Bay fill would implement Policy 3, "Promote new development 
which has minimal adverse envi roimental consequences..." 

The project would implement the Central Waterfront Plan Maritime Objective 
to "Retain and expand maritime activity along the Central Waterfront." 
Retention of cargo facilities at the North Terminal would be in accordance 
with Policy 1, "Retain all existing maritime general cargo facilities along 
the Central Waterfront (Piers 48, 50, 70, and 80)." Modernization of faci- 
lities would conform to Policy 3, "Encourage the expansion and moderniza- 
tion of maritime cargo handling facilities and the development of container 
facilities along the Central Waterfront." 

The ICTF would implement Central Waterfront Plan Transportation Objective 
1, "Improve the accessibility of the Central Waterfront," Policy 6, "Pro- 

A-12 



Appendices 

vide adequate rail and truck access to all maritime piers." The new bridge \ 
across Islais Creek to provide improved movement between the North and : 
South Terminals would implement Transportation Objective 2, "Improve Trans- 
portation conditions within the Central Waterfront." Cargo handling acti- I 
vities would be visible from the Pier 98 public access area in conformity \ 
with the Central Waterfront Plan Recreation and Open Space Objective, 
"Provide public access and recreational opportunities along the shoreline," 
Policy 3, "Provide public overlooks, viewing areas, and open spaces with j 
convenient access in areas of maritime activity." ! 

Modernization of the North Terminal (Pier 80) would be in accordance with 
Central Waterfront Plan Islais Creek Area Objective 1, "Expand maritime | 
activity in the Islais Creek area," Policy 1, "Continue to modernize Pier 
80 as a major general cargo facility." Elimination of the existing low 

i 

level of maritime use of the west end of Islais Creek would not be in accor- , 
dance with Islais Creek Area Objective 1 but would comply with Policy 1 ! 
under this Objective by assisting in the modernization of Pier 80 as a gene- 

! 

ral cargo facility. Compliance with the Comprehensive Plan for the City i 

and County of San Francisco will not be discussed in the EIR. '. 

I 

The project would be in conformity with the MTC/BCDC Seaport Plan designa- ! 

i 

tion of the project site as a port priority use area for development of ' 
container terminals (page 29). By modernizing existing facilities the pro- j 

ject would conform to the goals of the Seaport Plan to: "Provide for the < 

1 

efficient use of finite physical and fiscal resources cons-imed in develop- J 
ing marine terminals." (page 1). The ICTF would follow the Seaport Plan's j 
goal of providing "integrated and improved surface transportation facilities 
between San Francisco Bay ports and other regional transportation systems." j 

A-13 ; 

i 



Appendices 



The project would not interfere with implementation of the BCDC Special Area 
Plan No. 1 Policies 1 and 2 for Islais Creek West of Third Street, "The south 
side of Islais Creek Channel west of the Third Street Bridge should be 
developed for public access and waterfront recreation as a public esplanade 
and viewing area" and "Limited development, preferably Bay-oriented commer- 
cial recreation, should be permitted on the south side of Islais Creek 
channel, provided it is incidental to public access and water-related rec- 
reation and does not obstruct public access," The view across the Islais 
Channel would change due to loss of access for moving vessels west of the 
new bridge. Compliance with the BCDC Bay Plan and the Special Area Plan 
will be discussed in the EIR. 

B, ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS, 

1, Land Use , Could the project: Yes No Discussed 

*a. Disrupt or divide the physical 
arrangement of an established 

community? X X 

b. Have any substantial impact upon 
the existing character of the 

vicinity? _X_ _X_ 

Modernization of Port facilities in an area already zoned for heavy indus- 
try would not have a substantial impact on the existing character of the 
vicinity nor would it disrupt any established communities. 

All construction proposed would take place within property under the juris- 
diction of the Port of San Francisco, Port property is bounded by indus- 
trial development to the west and San Francisco Bay to the east. The main 



* Derived from State EIR Guidelines, Appendix G, normally significant effect. 



A-14 



Appendices 



active maritime use on Islais Creek west of the Third Street bridge is a 
copra (coconut oil) processing plant that is proposed to be served by pipe- 
line from a berth on Islais Creek east of the Third Street bridge. This 
facility currently receives one shipment of oil every one to two months. 
Any illegally anchored houseboats west of the new bridge would be displaced 
or precluded from moving out of Islais Creek. Possible land and water use 
effects stemming from the closure of this waterway west of the proposed new 
bridge will be examined in the EIR. 

2. Visual Quality . Could the project: Yes No Discussed 

*a. Have a substantial, demonstrable 

negative aesthetic effect? X X 



b. Substantially degrade or obstruct 

any scenic view or vista now observed 

from public areas? X X 



c. Generate obtrusive light or glare 
substantially impacting other 

properties? X X 

As both terminals are currently active cargo handling facilities and all 
improvements proposed would continue existing terminal operations within 
existing terminal boundaries and be located in an industrial area, there 
would not be a substantial negative aesthetic effect. This issue will not 
be discussed in the EIR. 

With the exception of the Third Street bridge, views of the project area of 
the Port and the adjacent Bay typically occur at distances of over one-half 
mile from the water's edge. The site is over one mile from higher eleva- 
tions and residential neighborhoods to the west and southwest. Removal of 
the 40 f*:, high sheds at the North Terminal would increase views of the 



* Derivt i from State EIR Guidelines, Appendix G, normally significant effect. 

A-15 



Appendices 



Bay; however, this would only be observable from points on Port property 
and from the immediate Third Street vicinity. New views opened up as a 
result of shed removal would be ephemeral, because stacks of containers 
would occupy the areas currently covered by the sheds. New views of the 
Bay and the Port would become accessible from the proposed public access on 
Pier 98. No futher analysis of views will be provided in the EIR. 

New light standards would be placed in the ICTF, in newly surfaced areas of 
the North Terminal and where pier sheds would be removed on the North Termi- 
nal. The increase in light would not be noticeable from the nearest resi- 
dential neighborhoods with a view of the Port, such as Potrero Hill and 
Hunters Point. This subject will not be covered in the EIR. 

3. Popul ation . Could the project: 

*a. Induce substantial growth or concen- 
tration of population? 

*b. Displace a large number of people 
(involving either housing or 
empl oyment) ? 

c. Create a substantial demand for 

additional housing in San Francisco, 
or substantially reduce the housing 
supply? 

Existing operations at the North and South Terminals involve about 100 per- 
manent jobs (about 65 at North Terminal and 40 at South Terminal). When 
ships are being loaded and unloaded the total number of persons working 
goes to 250 (about 150 at North Terminal and 100 at South Terminal). This 
increase is due to the number of longshoremen hired by the terminal opera- 
tors on a day-to-day basis. Modernization of these terminals would result 



* Derived from State EIR Guidelines, Appendix G, normally significant effect. 



Yes No Discussed 



A-16 



Appendices 



in the addition of about 40 permanent jobs and about 100 part-time long- 
shoremen's jobs.l The number of these jobs has dwindled in San Francisco 
during the last two decades as a result of increases in more efficient 
^container cargo handling (a less labor-intensive activity than traditional 
''"break bulk cargo) and of the decline of the City's historic market share 
of cargo. The trend to increased containerization of cargo will continue 
and would partially off-set the increases in jobs from the proposed pro- 
ject. Employment generation will not be further discussed in the EIR. 

No housing would be displaced by the project. If project-related job 
generation were not off-set, and if it is assuned that about 30% of both 
permanent and temporary new workers currently reside outside of San Fran- 
cisco and would desire to move in,^ a demand for a maximum of 45 housing 
units would be created as a result of new employment generated by the 
project. Estimated housing demand in San Francisco for the five-year 
period 1982 - 1986 is a minimum of 15,000; ^ 45 units would represent a 
maximum of about 0.2% of expected housing demand. This would not be a 
significant effect and this issue will not be discussed further in the EIR. 



NOTES: 

1. Northern terminal present employment estimates from Gene Blazek, Vicker- 
man 'Zachary 'Mil 1 er , consultants to the Port of San Francisco; Southern 
terminal estimates from Peter Klestoff, Stevedoring Services of America, 
Operator of Pier 96, telephone conversations of May 1, 1985, 

2. The Downtown Plan EIR, EE 81.3, SCH 84032003, Table IV. D. 2, page IV. D. 4, 
shows that San Francisco residency varies inversely with socioeconomic 
status, ranging from 48.9% for Management/Technical to 82.4% for Hotel 
workers. Since the new port employment would be blue collar, their San 
Francisco residence rate would fall at about 70% on that scale. 

3. Residence Element of the Comprehensive Plan for the City and County of 
San Francisco, 1984, page 1-22. 



A-17 



Appendices 



4. Transportation/Ci rculation . Could the project: Yes No Discussed 

*a. Cause an increase in traffic which 
is substantial in relation to the 
existing traffic load and capacity 

of the street system? X X 



b. Interfere with existing transporta- 
tion systems, causing substantial 
alterations to circulation patterns 
or major traffic hazards? 

c. Cause a substantial increase in 
transit demand which cannot be 
accommodated by existing or pro- 
posed transit capacity? 

d. Cause a substantial increase in 
parking demand which cannot be 
accommodated by existing parking 
facil ities? 



The proposed project would increase truck and rail trips to and from the 
SFCT. An increase in "'"unit train trips to and from the ICTF could delay 
traffic along Third Street if train crossings were to occur during peak 
hours. The EIR will discuss traffic and circulation on surrounding streets 
as they relate to the operation of the terminals and the projected increase 
in throughput capability. 

Three MUNI bus lines serve the site vicinity: 15 Third which runs north/ 
south on Third Street adjacent to Port property and lines 19 and 44 which 
start at India Basin Industrial Park and travel north and northwest respec- 
tively across the City. Less than 5% of SFCT workers currently use public 
transit.^ Assiming that this percentage might be doubled for new workers by 
an active campaign for use of public transit, a maximum of 12 new bus round 
trips per day would occur. This increase in demand would not have a signifi 



* Derived from State EIR Guidelines, Appendix G, normally significant effect 



A-18 



Appendices 



cant effect on demand for MUNI bus service. This issue will not be discus- 
sed in the EIR. 

On-site parking is supplied by the terminal operators to all employees who 
drive. Longshoremen, who are hired on a daily basis, park outside the ter- 
minals in nearby lots and on adjacent streets. No parking shortages cur- 
rently exist outside of either terminal. ^ South Terminal parking would be 
consolidated in two lots (approximately 50 spaces) near the proposed 
entrance facility. No parking spaces would be displaced by the project. 
Parking demand by new employees will be discussed in the EIR. 

The cumulative impacts of increased truck and rail trips on traffic circu- 
lation patterns, transit and pedestrians will be discussed in the EIR. 



NOTES: 

1. Peter Klestoff, Stevedoring Services of America, telephone conversation 
of April 17, 1985. 

2. Ian Back, California Stevedore & Ballast Company, telephone conversa- 
tion of April 16, 1985. 



5. Noise . Could the project: Yes No Discussed 

*a. Increase substantially the ambient 

noise levels for adjoining areas? X X 

b. Violate Title 25 Noise Insulation 

tion Standards, if applicable? X N/A 

c. Be substantially impacted by 

existing noise levels? X 

Construction activities including excav^ation, pile driving and dredging 
would temporarily increase noise and would intermittently exceed ambient 

* Derived from State EIR Guidelines, Appendix G, normally significant effect. 



A-19 



Appendices 

noise levels of 60-65 L^p in the site vicinity. The maximum pile driving 
noise level of 105 dBA would be audible over a background of 60 dBA for a 
distance of over two miles during construction where hills or major struc- 
tures did not interfere with noise transmission. 

The closest sensitive noise receptors, such as inhabitants of residential 
development, are located approximately one mile from the site at Hunters 
Point, beyond the PG&E Potrero Power Plant, or on lower Potrero Hill. The 
background noise level along Third Street, between Port property and Inter- 
state 280, is 75 dBA; the level at Interstate 280 is 80 dBA. Pile dri- 
ving could be heard above a background of 75 dBA for a distance of about a 
mile; over a background of 80 for about 3200 feet. Pile driving would 
take place 400 to 1500 feet from the edge of Port property. Maximum pile 
driving noise at the edge of Port property would be 93 dBA. Other construe 
tion noise would not be expected to be heard beyond Port property. Con- 
struction noise will not be further discussed in the EIR. 

Increased truck traffic in and out of the terminals could elevate noise 
levels in the vicinity and along principal arterials such as Army and Third 
Streets. An increase in total trips on affected routes of over 25% would 
be required in order to produce a noticeable increase in traffic-related 
noise. 2 The project would result in about 100 truck trips per day above 
present truck traffic levels. The present 24-hour vehicle trip levels on 
Army St. west of Indiana are 12,700 and on Third St. south of Twenty Sixth 
St, are 22,100.^ Making a worst case assumption that all project- rel ated 
trips would pass over Third Street and/or Army Street, even allowing for 
the greater noise generation of trailer trucks than cars, project-generated 
increases in truck traffic would not be great enough to produce an audible 
change in traffic noise. 

A-20 



Appendices 

The Southern Pacific Railroad currently operates a midnight freight train 
out of San Francisco Monday through Saturday with return to the City at 11 
a.m. the next morning (average about 10 cars, maximum about 20 cars). The 
Port would use this train for small loads and would use 50-car, one-mile- 
long unit trains departing at a similar time in order to meet connecting 
trans-continental trains leaving Los Angeles the following morning. The 
Port does not have control over Southern Pacific train schedules. 

Two trains each night would be expected with full operation of the ICTF, 
doubling the number of train trips. Longer .trains would produce noise 
levels similar to those of existing trains which would last longer for each 
train passage because of greater train length. In some cases, the noise 
level would decrease because the lubrication mechanism used to reduce fric- 
tion on some new types of cars also reduces noise generation. This would 
not represent a substantial difference from the existing setting. Noise 
impacts of train traffic will not be covered in the EIR. 



1. Environmental Protection Element, Comprehensive Plan of the City and 
County of San Francisco, 1974, pp. 16-17. 

2. A doubling of automobile traffic is required to produce an increase in 
noise level of about 3 dBA, the minimum audible change in noise level. 
FEIR for the West Side Transpo rt/ Storage Project, Vol. II, Appendices, 
EE 75.304, SCH 77052347, 1977, p. 30. Since trucks are noisier than 
automobiles a smaller increase is required to produce the same noise 
increase produced by cars. 

3. February 16, 1983, count on Army St. west of Indiana St.: 8,500 east- 
bound trips and 4235 westbound trips; May 3, 1983, count on Third St. 
south of 26th St.: 12,108 northbound trips and 10,018 southbound trips. 
Stanley Chin, San Franci so Department of Public Works,. Traffic Engin- 
eering, telephone conversation of June 4, 1985. 



A-21 



Appendices 



I 



6. Air Quality /Climate . Could the project: 

*a. Violate any ambient air quality 
standard or contribute substan- 
tially to an existing or projected 
air quality violation? 

*b. Expose sensitive receptors to 

substantial pollutant concentrations? 

c. Permeate its vicinity with objec- 
tionable odors? 



d. Alter wind, moisture or temperature 
(including sun shading effects) so 
as to substantially affect public 
areas, or change the climate either 
in the community or region? 



Increased truck, train and ship trips would contribute to a localized j 

degradation of air quality along their respective routes and would contri- 1 

I 

bute to occasional existing air quality violations. Air quality impacts | 
will be discussed in the EIR. 

I 

Prevailing winds on the site are from the west and northwest, with the Bay I 

j 

immediately downwind of the site. Modifications proposed for the site 1 
would not significantly alter wind currents in the area nor cast shadows | 
over any public areas. These topics will not be discussed further in the 
EIR. 



7. Utilities/Public Services . Could the project: Yes No Discussed 

*a. Breach published national, state 
or local standards relating to 

solid waste or litter control? X 



*b. Extend a sewer trunk line with 

capacity to serve new development? X X 



Yes No Discussed 



_X__ J(_ 

X X 



* Derived from State EIR Guidelines, Appendix G, normally significant effect, 

A-22 



I 



Appendices 



c. 



Substantially increase demand for 
schools, recreation or other 
public facilities? 



X 



X 



d. Require major expansion of power, 
water, or communications facilities? 



X 



X 



All sewer connections to the site are already in place and new development 
on the terminals would not be of the type that would contribute substan- 
tially to wastewater generation. Thus sewer capacity would not need to be 
expanded to accomodate proposed development. Islais Creek receives sewage 
overflows from 1,700 acres of the City during storms when the City's com- 
bined sewer system cannot handle the flows. Peak stonm flows of sewage 
reach 141 gallons per minute; they temporarily lower salinity and raise 
the col i form levels in Islais Creek. ^ Existing sewer overflows would not 
be affected by the project. This subject will not be further discussed in 



As part of the project. Pier 98 would be dedicated to public access to 
serve open space and recreational needs of the surrounding area. Insignifi- 
cant increases in services would be associated with this development. Ser- 
vices to Pier 98 will not be discussed in the EIR. 

Currently, bridge lifts on Islais Creek number about 230 per year. Because 
the bridge proposed to cross Islais Creek just east of the existing Third 
Street drawbridge would be a fixed crossing, there would be no need for the 
Department of Public Works (DPW) to keep the present bridge in operable 
condition. Staff required to maintain and operate the present bridge also 
service the two drawbriges in China Basin; thus, their employment would 
not be terminated as a result of the closure of upper Islais Creek to 
navigation. 



the EIR. 



A-23 



Appendices 



The Police and Fire Departments have indicated that the proposed project 
would not create any additional demand for their respective services. 2 
Currently there are no unusual problems with the public safety environment 
around the site aside from those created by traffic. Both departments have 
indicated that, in general, improvements to a site lead to better security 
and fire safety. 2 

No major expansion of power or communication lines would be necessary as a 
result of the project. The Port would underground all power lines cur- 
rently above ground at the North Terminal. This would be done at the 
Port's expense and would not require additional personnel or equipment from 
PG&E. These issues will not be discussed in the EIR. 



1. Hoffman, Roderick W. and Meighan, Richard B., The impact of combined 
sewer overflows from San Francisco on the western shore of Central San 
Francisco Bay, Journal Water Pollution Control Federation 56:1277-1287, 
1984. 



2. Officer Mahoney, Permit Officer, SFPD, Potrero Station and Michael Pat- 
terson, Port Fire Marshal, telephone conversations of April 24, 1985. 



NOTES: 



8. Biology . Could the project: 



Yes 



No 



Discussed 



*a. Substantially affect a rare or 
endangered species of animal or 
plant or the habitat of the species? 



X 



X 



*b. Substantially diminish habitat 
for fish, wildlife or plants, 
or interfere substantially with 
the movement of any resident or 
migratory fish or wildlife species? 



X 



X 



c. Require removal of substantial 
numbers of mature, scenic trees? 



X 



* Derived from State EIR Guidelines, Appendix G, normally significant effect 

A-24 



Appendices 



Rare or endangered species may be affected by the dedication of Pier 98 as 
publicly accessible open space. These may include: the Least Tern, the 
Brown Pelican and the Salt Marsh Harvest Mouse. A biological study of the 
area would be made. If biologically sensitive areas or endangered species 
are found, the Port would follow the biologist's recommendations for public 
uses compatible with preservation of biological values. This would mitigate 
potential biological Impacts to insignificance and this subject will not be 
di scussed in the E IR. 

9. Geol ogy /Topography . Could the project: Yes No Discussed 

*a. Expose people or structures to major 
geologic hazards (slides, subsidence, 

erosion and liquefaction)? X X 

b. Change substantially the topography 
or any unique geologic or physical 

features of the site? X X 

The project area is located entirely on landfill and is prone to subsidence, 
erosion from wave action of Bay waters, and potential tsunami inundation. 
In the event of a 1906 magnitude earthquake the area would be subject to 
violent ground shaking and subsidence. ^ 

The project would be constructed under supervision of California-registered 
structural engineers and would comply with all applicable seismic and life 
safety standards. 

Portions of the South Terminal near the proposed ICTF would be graded, and a 
10 ft. man-made berm^ running roughly parallel to Cargo, Way would be leveled 
At the North Terminal settlement increases towards the Bay.^ Past differen- 
tial settlement has resulted in damage to a sewer outfall''^ passing under the 

* Derived from State EIR Guidelines, Appendix G, normally significant effect 

A-2 5 



Appendices 

Pier. Recent settlement damage is currently under investigation, and it is 
expected that repair work would overlap with upgrading of cargo facilities. 
The two construction activities would be coordinated by the Port and the 
Department of Public Works. 

Geologic and seismic impacts will not be further discussed in the EIR. 



NOTES: 

1. URS/John A. Blume & Associates, San Francisco Seismic Safety Investiga- 
tion, 1974. 

2. Berm: an artificial ridge of earth, 

3. Dames & Moore, Geotechnical Investigation, Army Street Terminal (Pier 
80), San Francisco, California, for the San Francisco Port Commission, 
May 12, 1982, 

4. A force main carrying effluent from the Southeast booster ptnp station 
on the south side of Islais Creek just west of the existing bridge. 



10. Water . Could the project: 



*a. Substantially degrade water quality, 
or contaminate a public water supply? 

*b. Substantially degrade or deplete 
ground water resources, or inter- 
fere substantially with ground 
water recharge? 



*c. Cause substantial flooding, 
erosion or siltation? 



Dredging to widen Islais Creek channel would temporarily degrade Bay water 
quality in the site area. Dredging is done regularly to maintain channel 
depth. Impacts, if any, would be expected only in areas not now subject to 
routine maintenance dredging. 



* Derived from State EIR Guidelines, Appendix G, normally significant effect. 



Yes No Discussed ! 

i 



A-26 



Appendices 



Sediments in Islais Creek contain 37-209 mil 1 igram/ki 1 ogram dry weight 
(mg/kg) copper, 29-534 mg/kg chromium, 1-63 mg/kg silver, 1-6.5 mg/kg cad- 
mium, 41-882 mg/kg lead, 95-194 mg/kg zinc, 0.2-1.2 mg/kg mercury, 112-130 
mg/kg nickel, and 5.5-11.8 mg/kg of arsenic. 1»2 These ranges indicate that 
there is considerable variation from place to place within Islais Creek. 
Some of the mercury, and possibly other elements, may be metabolized by 
microorganisms into more toxic forms after suspension in the water as a 
result of dredging activities. This would occur for a few hours or days 
after dredging and would not be expected to produce detectable effects on 
food chains involving human food species. The metals in the sediments are 
derived from street runoff, past ship bottom scraping activities, etc. 
Dredging and disposal of the dredged material (spoils) would require a per- 
mit from the Army Corps of Engineers, which would require testing of the 
material to be dredged in order to determine appropriate methods of dredg- 
ing and a safe disposal site. Dredging and spoils disposal will not be dis- 
cussed in the EIR. 

Pile driving into clean sand would cause temporary local increases in water 
turbidity, which would temporarily cause organisms in the water to avoid the 
area and swim around it. This subject will not be discussed in the EIR. 

Approximately 50 acres would be newly paved in the South Terminal and ICTF, 
an increase from 140 to 190 paved acres (an increase from 68% paved to 93% 
of the 205 acre site paved), ^ Runoff from paved surfaces impervious to 
water would Increase but not substantially in comparison to existing condi- 
tions. Runoff will not be discussed in the EIR. 



The San Francisco Bay/Delta system is affected by such factors as tides, 
current paths, freshwater inflow and urban discharges (waste disposal). 

A-27 



Appendices 

The interaction of these with any other biological and chemical factors 
leads to the diversity in water quality which exists throughout the Bay. 
Compared to the influence of these factors, the long-term impacts of ter- 
minal development are expected to be small or negligible.^ 

All ships are required by federal law to pump all waste discharges into 
holding tanks when within the Bay or other ports. Water quality issues 
related to maritime traffic will not be further analyzed in the EIR. 

Removal of some existing fill on the south side of Islais Creek could affect 
water quality in Islais Creek. Potential impacts of removal of this fill 
will be discussed in the EIR. 



NOTES: 

1. Analysis of samples collected April 20, 1982; letter of James Salerno, 
Water Quality Chemist, Bureau of Water Pollution Control, San Francisco 
Department of Public Works, April 10, 1985, to Dr. Selina Bendix, Bendix 
Environmental Research, Inc., EIR consultant. 

2. Hoffman, Roderick W. and Meighan, Richard B., The impact of combined 
sewer overflows from San Francisco on the western shore of Central San 
Francisco Bay, Journal Water Pollution Control Federation 56:1277-1287, 
1984. 

3. Blazick, Eugene M., Project Manager, Vickerman*ZacharyMil ler, memoran- 
dum to Randall S. Rossi, Port of San Francisco, May 31, 1985. 

4. San Francisco Bay Area Seaport Plan, Final Technical Report , April, 
1982, page 117. 



11. Energy/Natural Resources . Could the project: Yes No Discussed 



*a. Encourage activities which result 

in the use of large amounts of fuel, 
water, or energy, or use these in 
a wasteful manner? 



j 

X X 



* Derived from State EIR Guidelines, Appendix G, normally significant effect. 



A -28 



Appendices 



b. Have a substantial effect on the 
potential use, extraction, or 

depletion of a natural resource? X 

By increasing the potential throughput of the SFCT, this project would 
increase the quantity of gas and diesel fuel consumed on-site to operate 
yard equipment as well as off-site energy increases associated with truck, 
rail and ship trips required to move container cargo. 

The relative fuel effectiveness of various means of transportation is: 
truck about 60 ton-miles per gallon (3000 BTU per metric tonne-mile), rail- 
road about 250 ton-miles per gallon (570 BTU per metric tonne-mile), and 
water > 300 ton-miles per gallon (360 BTU per metric tonne-mil e) In- 
creases in the more energy-efficient marine shipping of container cargo 
will take place without regard to changes at the Port of San Francisco. 
The proposed modernization would affect the portion of Pacific Coast ship- 
ping handled by the Port and, therefore, the distribution of energy consimp 
tion for cargo handling among Pacific Coast ports. 

The proposed new facilities would shift some land transportation of cargo 
from truck to rail and would decrease the number of lifting and transfer 
operations per container. Both actions would decrease the average amount 
of energy used per cargo container. 

The proposed project would increase total energy use at the Port of San 
Francisco, decrease the average amount of energy used per cargo container, 
and would not significantly affect the total energy consumed in Pacific 
Coast cargo handling operations. 

Energy impacts will not be discussed further in the EIR. 



A-29 



Appendices 



NOTES: 

1, Gallon/ton-mile estimates from information in Grimmer, D. P. & Lusz- 
czynski. Lost Power, Environment, April 1972, p. 15, and Federal Energy 
Information Administration, Energy Conservation indicators, 1983 Annual 
Report, October 1984, p. 67. BTU/tonne-mil e estimates in parentheses from 
Leigh Stamets, California Energy Commission, telephone conversation of 3 May 
1985. The quantitative differences in relative values of the two estimates 
for each mode of transportation result from differences in methodology. 
The methods agree in the qualitative relative efficiency of the three modes 
of transport. 



12. Hazards . Could the project: Yes No Discussed 

*a. Create a potential public health 
hazard or involve the use, pro- 
duction or disposal of materials 
which pose a hazard to people or 
animal or plant populations in 

the area affected? X X 



*b. Interfere with emergency response 

plans or emergency evacuation plans? X 

c. Create a potentially substantial 

fire hazard? X X 



Currently all fuel is brought to the site via truck and stored above ground. 
Underground storage tanks would be constructed at the North Terminal to 
serve diesel operated machinery such as container cranes, port packers, 
etc. Underground diesel fuel storage tanks may also be installed at the 
ICTF. Any underground tanks would conform to the Sher Act which governs 
construction of underground fuel storage tanks and mandates their inspec- 
tion and maintenance to prevent spills or other mishaps, and to the release 
detection, prevention and corrosion regulations to be issued by the US 
Environmental Protection Agency pursuant to Public Law 98-616, the 1984 



* Derived from State EIR Guidelines, Appendix G, normally significant effect. 



A-30 



Appendices 



amendments to the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act. These tanks will 
not be discussed in the EIR. 

Methane may be generated by decomposing garbage under the engineered fill. 
This methane would constitute a potential fire and explosion hazard for 
construction operations and buildings on the project site. Methane will be 
di scussed in the EIR. 

A relatively small portion of the container cargo presently handled is 
classified as hazardous under Coast Guard regulations (2% or about 600 con- 
tainers in 1984^). The percent of hazardous cargo would not be expected to 
change; the absolute cffnount of hazardous cargo could increase with in- 
creased cargo throughput. The U. S. Department of Transportation and U. S. 
Coast Guard regulate handling, storage and tranportation of hazardous cargo 
under 33 CFR Part 126, 46 CFR and 49 CFR.2 

Worker safety and health are governed by OSHA General Industry standards in 
29 CFR Part 1910, Marine Terminals 29 CFR Part 1917, and Longshoring 29 CFR 
Part 1918. These regulations require that hazardous cargo be identified 
before cargo handling operations begin, that such cargo be earful ly secured 
to prevent accidents and that, in case of accidental spillage or leak, 
employees be removed from the affected area until the nature of the hazard 
is determined and appropriate equipment is available for safe handling and 
disposal of the cargo. The Port has standard procedures for handling 
hazardous cargo. When Port staff ascertain that hazardous cargo is coming 
to the Port or is stored at the Port, the Port Fire Marshal is notified and 
in turn notifies the Coast Guard. 3 



A-31 



Appendices 

I 



NOTES: i 

1. Roger Peters, Port of San Francisco, telephone conversation of May 6, 
1985. 

2. U.S. Department of Labor, Occupational Safety and Health Administration, 
Longshoring Industry, OSHA 2232, 1983. p. 24. 

3. Wal Strom, William, Port of San Francisco, Ian Beck, CAlifornia Stevedore 
and Ballast Co., and Peter Klestoff, Stevedoring Services of America, 
telephone conversations of June 5, 1985. 

i 
j 

13. Cultural . Could the project: Yes No Discussed | 



i 

X X 



X 



X 



The project site is entirely on fill. The area served as a garbage dump 

and then received engineered fill, most of it after 1960. Project grading ! 

would affect the top engineered fill layer. Pile driving would take place 

in sand which was empl aced after dredging up to 120 feet down to Bay mud. I 

Cultural resources are not expected to be encountered during construction i 

because piles would go through clean sand and grading would affect engi- 

i 

neered fill. No excavation is proposed. 

i 



* Derived from State EIR Guidelines, Appendix G, normally significant effect. 



A-32 



*a. Disrupt or adversely affect a pre- 
historic or historic archeol ogical 
site or a property of historic or 
cultural significance to a community 
or ethnic or social group; or a 
pal eontol ogical site except as a 
part of a scientific study? 

*b. Conflict with established recrea- 
tional, educational, religious or 
scientific uses of the area? 

c. Conflict with the preservation of 
buildings subject to the provisions 
of Article 10 or (proposed) Article 
11 of the City Planning Code? 



Appendices 



the project sponsor has agreed as part of the project to a mitigation measure 
which addresses this potential impact (see D. Mitigation Measures, page 
31). Issues associated with cultural impacts will not be discussed in the 
EIR. 

C. OTHER . Could the project: Yes No Discussed 

Require approval of permits from 
City Departments other than the 
Department of City Planning or 
Bureau of Building Inspection, 
or from Regional, State or Federal 

Agencies? X X 

Permits would be required from the Bay Conservation and Development Commis- 
sion (BCDC). The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and the U.S. Coast Guard 
would have jurisdiction. The Coast Guard would be federal lead agency in 
granting permits for closure of Islais Creek to navigation west of the 
existing Third Street bridge and for construction of a fixed bridge over 
Islais Creek. The Army Corps of Engineers would be a permitting agency for 
Pier 98, the new cranes, and the two new berths on Islais Creek if they 
were to be built. Several other regional and State agencies, such as the 
Regional Water Quality Control Board and the Department of Fish and Game, 
would comment to the permitting agencies as part of the permitting process. 
Permitting and regulatory agencies with jurisdiction will be discussed in 
the EIR. 

D. MITIGATION MEASURES Yes No N/A Discussed 

1. If any significant effects have 
been identified, are there ways 

to mitigate them? , X X 

2. Are all mitigation measures 
identified above included in 

the project? X X 



A-33 



Appendices 

j 

MITIGATION MEASURES INCLUDED AS PART OF THE PROJECT: 1 

I 

1. Architectural and Historic Resources . Should evidence of cultural or ' 
historic artifacts of significance be found during project excavation, the 

i 

Environmental Review Officer and the President of the Landmarks Preserva- | 
tion Advisory Board would be immediately notified. The project sponsor ' 
would employ an archaeologist or other expert to help the Office of Envi- | 
ronmental Review determine the significance of the find and whether feasi- j 

! 

ble measures, including appropriate security measures, could be implemented 
to preserve or recover such artifacts. The Environmental Review Officer I 
would then recommend specific mitigation measures, if necessary, and recom- 
mendations would be sent to the State Office of Historic Preservation, 
Excavation or construction which might damage the discovered cultural j 
resources would be suspended for a maximum of four weeks to permit ins pec- i 
tion, recommendation and retrieval, if appropriate, ' 

2. Ai r Qual ity . The California Health and Safety Code requires that mea- 

i 

sures be taken to minimize dust generation by watering demolition materials j 
and soils. An effective watering program (complete coverage of construc- 
tion area twice daily) can reduce emissions by about 50%, The project 

sponsor would require the contractor to water the site at least twice a | 

i 

day, which would reduce airborne construction dust by about 50% and reduce 

I 

the probability of exceeding state and federal standards. I 

3. Geology , A California-registered structural engineer and a geotechnical | 
consultant would prepare a detailed foundation and structural design report | 
for the project. The project sponsor would construct the project in accor- | 
dance with the recommendations of the report pertaining to foundations, | 
subsidence and earthquake safety. 



A-34 



Appendices 



4. Biology . Project sponsor would initiate a biological study of the pro- 
posed Pier 98 public access area and would follow the recommendations of a 
biologist in assuring that, if biologically sensitive areas or areas found 
to support endangered species exist on Pier 98, they would remain undevel- 
oped in the manner of an ecological preserve. This would mitigate the poten- 
biological impacts to insignificance. 

5. Land Use . Construction of a new fixed bridge would prevent ships from 
coming up Islais Creek to the existing copra plant west of the existing 
drawbridge. Installation of a pipeline from the navigable portion of the 
Creek to the. plant would provide for continued operation. 

Additional mitigation measures for the project will be discussed in the EIR 
as impacts are identified. 

E. ALTERNATIVES 

The following alternatives to the proposed project will be discussed in the 
EIR: 

1. No Project . Conditions on the project site if no improvements were 
made and no modernization of the container handling facilities took place. 

2. 2.5 Acre Parcel Purchase/Addition Along Army Street . Port acquisition 
of a 2.5 acre parcel of land just outside their present boundary along the 
north side of Army Street to be used for truck queuing space and a relo- 
cated entry gate. 

3. Islais Creek Bridge . Movable bridge : A movable bridge on Islais Creek 
with the waterway remaining accessible as at present and continued mainte- 
nance of the existing drawbridge. No bridge : The project with no inter- 
terminal connection except for the City streets currently being used. 



A-3 5 



Appendices 



4. ICTF With Different Configuration . Alternative track configurations 
for the ICTF inside the South Terminal. 

5. Entrance Gate Configurations . A main entrance to both terminals along 
Army Street with South Terminal traffic using the interterminal bridge 
versus the South Terminal having a primary entrance off Cargo Way and the 
Army Street entrance serving the North Terminal alone. 

F. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE Yes No Discussed 

'1. Does the project have the potential to degrade 
the quality of the environment, substantially 
reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife 
species, cause a fish or wildlife population 
to drop below selfsustaining levels, threaten 
to eliminate a plant or animal community, 
reduce the number or restrict the range of a 
rare or endangered plant or animal, or elimi- 
nate important examples of the major periods 

of California history or prehistory? X X 



*2. Does the project have the potential to achieve 
short-term, to the disadvantage of long-term, 
environmental goals? 

*3. Does the project have possible environmental 
effects which are individually limited, but 
cumulatively considerable? (Analyze in the 
light of past projects, other current pro- 
jects, and probable future projects.) 

*4. Would the project cause substantial adverse 
effects on human beings, either directly or 
indi recti y? 

*5, Is there a serious public controversy con- 
cerning the possible environmental effect of 
the project? 



* Derived from State EIR Guidelines, Appendix G, normally significant effect. 



A-36 



! 



Appendices 



G. ON THE BASIS OF THIS INITIAL STUDY: 



I find the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on 
the environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared by the 
Department of City Planning. 



I find that although the proposed project could have a significant 

effect on the environment, there WILL NOT be a significant effect 

in this case because the mitigation measures, numbers , in 

the discussion have been included as part of the proposed project. 
A NEGATIVE DECLARATION wi 1 1 be prepared. 

X I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on 

the environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required. 



Barbara W, Sahm 
Environmental Review Officer 

for 

Dean L. Macris 
Director of Planning 

Date: June 21 , 1985 



A-37 



Appendices 



Appendix B. Transportation Level of Service Definitions. 

Level of Volume/Capacity 
Service Description V/C Ratio 



Level of Service A describes a condition where the - 0,60 

approach to an intersection appears quite open and 

turning movements are made easily. Little or no delay 

is experienced. No vehicles wait longer than one red 

traffic signal indication. The traffic operation can 

generally be described as excellent. 

Level of Service B describes a condition where the 0.61 - 0,70 

approach to an intersection is occasionally fully 

utilized and some delays may be encountered. Many 

drivers begin to feel somewhat restricted within 

groups of vehicles. The traffic operation can be 

generally described as very good. 

Level of Service C describes a condition where the 0.71 - 0.80 

approach to an intersection if often fully utilized 

and back-ups may occur behind turning vehicles. Most 

drivers feel somewhat restricted, but not objectionably 

so. The driver occasionally may have to wait more 

than one red traffic signal indication. The traffic 

operation can generally be described as good. 

Level of Service D describes a condition of increasing 0.81 - 0.90 
restriction causing substantial delays and queues of 
vehicles on approaches to the intersection during 
short times within the peak period. However, there 
are enough signal cycles with lower demand such that 
queues are periodically cleared, thus preventing exces- 
sive back-ups. The traffic operations can generally 
be described as fair. 

Capacity occurs at Level of Service E. It represents 0.91 - 1.00 
the most number of vehicles that any particular inter- 
section can accommodate. At capacity there may be 
long queues of vehicles waiting up-stream of the 
intersection and vehicles may be delayed up to several 
signal cycles. 

Level of Service F represents a jammed condition. Back- 1.00 
ups from locations downstream or on the cross street may 
restrict or prevent movement of vehicles out of the 
approach under consideration. Hence, volumes of vehicles 
passing through the intersection vary from signal cycle 
to signal cycle. Because of the jammed condition, this 
volume would be less than capacity. 



Source: San Francisco Department of Public Works, Traffic Division, Bureau 
of Engineering, 1965. 



Append! ces 



OO 



30 

o 



r—t 

o 



C*5 

l-H O 



OO 



00 

o 



^ o 



CO 

O CO 



00 



o 

OO 



OO o 



(A 



O 



ft 

o o 
o 



CO 

O r-H 



oi 

< 
s 

CO 

z 
<: 

E- 
D 

J 

o 

a, 
ci 
< 

o 

u 

CO 

u 
z, 
< 
oi 

2: 
<: 

CO 



CO 

Q 

H < 

<: Q 

CO 



go 

^ CO 



< 

:d 
J 

O 
a. 



2o 



CO 



O 

u 

•o 

*x 

o 
c 
o 

S 

c 
o 

JO 
CO 

U 



E 
a 

bo 
cd 

> 

CO 

3 
O 



0) 

bo 

CO 

(U (X) 

« c 

^T3 



3 
O 

x: 

w 

(U 



0) 
0) 

o 

X 

o 



x z 



OS 



e 

ho 
Cd 
u 

> 
cd 
c 

3 

O 

x: 
I 

00 



0) 

bo 
cd 
c_ 

* c 
cd 

3 "O 

O 0) 

a» 

X 
0) 



CO 



X z 



CO 
o 
• 

c 
o 

o 



e 

>■ — 

<u 
ho 
Cd 

> 
cd 
t> 

3 
O 



bo 

cd 

^ <y 
cd c 



^ X 

05 Z 



CM 



<u 
C 
O 
Z 



bo 

Cd 

(U (1) 



(Ml 
O 

z 

x 
o 

Q 
c 

0) 

b4 
o 



ct. 

(U 

ho 
cd 

> 

CO 
Ci 
3 

o 

I 



ca c 
t» * 

3 «^ 

O o 

x: X 
d 

X z 



00 

t—i 

o o 
o 



o 



o 
CO 

QJ 

•a 

'X 

o 
5 

c 

3 

x: 

Qi 

"3 
CO 



e 

a. 

Of 

(U 

ho 
cd 

> 
Cd 

3 
O 

x: 
I 

■<T 



0) 

bo 

cd 

> 
CO 

3 



V] 

<U 
O 

c 
(d 

O XJ 



.6? d 
S Z 



eo 



o 
o 



CO 







CO 










w 




(U 




•*-> 


CO 




e 




ho 






3 






u 


01 


Cd 


cu, 


ho 
cd 


•o 


c> 


(U 




X} 


> 


c 


CO 


Oi 


t- 


a 


3 


tn 





Su 


x: 
1 




rr 


cd 


















(U 

ho 
Cd 

> 

CO 

3 

O 
JC 
I 

*-• 

CO 
(U 

x: 



d 

S Z 



A-39 



Appendices 



00 



CO 



00 



° o 

ITS 



00 



CO 
Oi 

i-H 

I 

o 
oo 

Oi 



< 



3 
w 

< 

►J 
O 
cu 

< 

O 

O 

CO 

U 
< 

Pi 

Oh 

z 
< 

cn 



CO 



o 

00 



n 

Q 

< 
O 
Z 
< 



04 

Q 
as 
< 
Q 
Z 
< 



Z 
< 

-J 

o 

04 



CO 
U5 



O 

Z 



o 
Z 



o 
z 



o 

CO 



tn 

3 
c 

CO 
0) 



c 

cd 

CO 

QJ "O 

C <U 

C <u 

O o 

(U X 

U W 

3 3 

C C 

C C 



I I 
I I 
I I 



CO 

in 



0) 

c 
o 
Z 



bo 

CO 

CI 

> 



in I 
• I 



c 
o 
Z 



CO 



CO 



bo 
cd 
(- 
o 
> 
< 



c 
o 
G 

CO 



w 
<u 
o 
c 

C CO 
O X3 



B 

I 

CO 



.ir o 
X Z 



e 

bo <i> 

e ^ 

CO 

<U 'O 

bo 0) 

CO (U 
> (U 

c o 



cn 
-a 

u 

CO 

O 
O 



CO 

•o 
<u 
+-< 
o 

0) 

o 
o 

CO 
CO 

-a 

00 

I 

o 
oo 
cn 



O 

c 
<u 

CO 

tn 

n 

CO 

•a 
c 

CO 



bO 

CO 
0) 

> 

CO 

la 

3 
C 

c 

< 



CO 

>> 

0) 
Oi 

(U 

o 
c 
o 

c 
CO 

JS 

o 

e 

0) 

•o 

0) 
0) 
CJ 

x; 

(U 

0) 
i3 



O 

c 

cn 

•a 

CO 

CO (U 



t/5 



2 «^ 

•a 

(U (U 



«5 
CO 

"O 

CO 

•a 
c 

CO 



O 

U 

CJ 
bo 

CO 

t-. 

0) 

> 

3 
O 

x: 



*-' 
CO 
*-> 



0) 

•a 
o 

X 
(U 

o 



•a 



00 

E 
a 
a 

O o 



o 
c 



e 

eO 

1= 

CO c 

•a o 

C fc- 

CO 

Ik -a 

4) 

OJ O 
3 

CO XJ 
<U 

eo 















>*> 




1 

CO 




CO 




f* 




w 




13 




(U 








CO 




JD 




tn 




•f— « 




























tn" 




(U 








cn 




(1) 




O 




X 








_ 




CO 




3 








c 
















4-* 












Oi 








w 








o 




cn 




E 








(D 








C 
















> 




'bb 




CO 








T3 








CO 




•o 




c 




CO 


(U 




bo 


cn 


CO 






"cO 




u 


> 


(U 


CO 


•a 

0) 

<<-■ 


ing 


<u 


c 


c 


x: 


3 


E- 









tn 

0) 

CO 

•5 
c 



o 

z 



CO 

•a 

o 

CO 

(U 

>> 

t< 
+-> 

c 
c 

CO 



CO 

.2 

a 
a. 
CO 

CO 



E B 



nu 


bO 

3 




cu 




c 


ngl 


O 
CO 


o 


'en 


•a 




<a 


G 


CO 


<u 


tn 








X 


<U 


c 


(U 


cx 


CO 


*-< 


tn 


<u 


o 


♦-• 


S 


c 


u 

CO 


o 


•o 


Qi 






'u 


-o 


II 


•J-" 


tn 


(U 


c 




G 


o 





o 

0) CO 

f _ 



_ c 
CO 

3 O 

C C 

c o 

CO o 

(U Oh 

J= CO 

E- E- 



tu lu 

<-> (U 

cu 4-' 

p (U 

3 J3 

a 3 

(U 

a. cu 



I 

o 

00 

cn 



cn 
0) 
3 
cn 

o 

t-> 

CO 



CO 

c 

CO 

c 
E 

CO 
*-> 

c 
o 
U 

•u 

c 

CO 

c 
o 

*-> 
CO 
*-• 
CO 

> * 

X3 
CO 

cu 

< 

CO 

m 

(U 



II II II 



I, bb|' 
CX 3 c 



o 
z 



c 
o 



o 



Q 
S 

CQ 
<U 

a 

3 
O 
CO 



c 

CO 

to 
oo 

CJ5 



OO 

cn 



A-40 



Appendices 
APPENDIX D 



LINER SERVICES CALLING THE SECT 



North Terminal Lines 



STEAMSHIP LINE 



AGENT 



1. Barber Blue Sea 



2. Empresa Lineas Maritimas 
Argentines S.A. (ELMA) 
41 Sutter Street 

San Francisco, CA 94104 
(415) 391-2171 

3. Independence Line 



4. Lloyd Brasiliero 



Lykes Brothers SS Co. 
100 Spear St., 6th & 7th floors 
San Franci sco, CA 94105 
(415) 227-2000 

Nauru Pacific 



Naviera Interamericana 
Navicana S.A. 



8. Nedlloyd Line 



9. Pacific Islands 
Transport Line 



Barber Steamship Lines of Ca. 
360 22nd St., Suite 600 
Oakland, CA 94612 
(415) 839-6891 

Transpacific Transportation Co. 
650 California Street 
San Francisco, CA 94108 
(415) 393-9100 



Kerr Steamship, Inc. 

One Market Plaza, Suite 2400 

Spear Street Tower 

San Francisco, CA 94105 

(415) 764-0200 

Kerr Steamship, Inc. 

One Market Plaza, Suite 2400 

Spear Street Tower 

San Francisco, CA 94105 

(415) 764-0200 



Nauru Air X Shipping Agency 
China Basin Building 
185 Berry Street, Suite 2803 
San Francisco, CA 94107 
(415) 543-1737 

Seapac Services Inc. 

433 Hegenberger Rd . , Suite 200 

Oakland, CA 94612 

(415) 562-6175 

Transpacific Transportation Co. 
650 California Street 
San Francisco, CA 94108 
(415) 393-9100 

General Steamship Corp., Ltd. 
400 Cal ifornia Street 
San Franci sco, CA 94104 
(415) 772-9200 



A-41 



Appendices 



i 



North Terminal Lines (Cont.) 
STEAMSHIP LINE 

10. Pan Ocean/Anco 

11. Scan Pacific Line 

12. Shipping Corp. of India 

South Terminal Lines 
STEAMSHIP LINE 

1. China Ocean Shipping Co. 
(COSCO) 

2. Columbus Line 

650 California St., Suite 1020 
S.F., CA 94108 
Phone: (415) 397-5500 

3. Evergreen Line 

4. Grancol umbiana Line 

5. National Shipping Corp. 

of the Phil ippines 

6. Pan Ocean/Anco 



AGENT 

Williams, Dimond & Co. 
50 California St., Suite 606 
San Francisco, CA 94111 
(415) 982-8350 

Will i ams, Dimond & Co, 

50 California St., Suite 606 

San Francisco, CA 94111 
(415) 982-8350 

Norton Lilly 

633 Battery St. 

San Francisco, CA 94111 

(415) 772-7300 



AGENT 

CALCO 

633 Battery Street 
San Francisco, CA 94111 
(415) 772-7300 (Norton Lilly) 
772-7388 (CALCO) 

Transpacific Transportation Co. 
650 California St. 
San Francisco, CA 94108 
(415) 393-9100 

Evergreen Marine Corp. 
50 California St., Suite 3325 
San Francisco, CA 94111 
(415) 781-2022 

Beaufort Navigation, Inc. 
50 California St., Suite 3100 
San Francisco, CA 94111 
(415) 433-6955 

Inter-Pacific Shipping Co. 
303 Hegenberger Rd., Suite 411 
Oakland, CA 94621 
(415) 568-6034 

Wi 1 1 i ams , Dimond A Co. 

50 California St., Suite 606 

San Francisco, CA 94111 
(415) 982-8350 



A -42 



Appendices 



South Terminal Lines (Cont.) 
STEAMSHIP LINE 

7. Stolt Tankers 

8. Tokyo Marine 

9. United Yugosl av 

(Spl osna PI ovba Pi ran) 

Source: Port of San Francisco 



AGENT 

Interocean Steamship Corp. 
465 California Street 
San Francisco, CA 94104 
(415) 398-2000 

Wil 1 i ams , Dimond & Co, 
50 Cal ifornia Street 
San Francisco, CA 94111 
(415) 982-8350 

TASA United Agency, Inc. 
350 Sansome St., Suite 810 
San Francisco, CA 94104 
(415) 989-7344 



A00635 of June 21, 1985. 



A-43 



GLOSSARY OF TERMS (Con't.) 



Liquid Bulk : Liquid cargoes, such as petroleum or vegetable oil, that are shipped 
in tankers rather than in drums or other small, individual units. 

Metric revenue ton : A measurement of cargo by weight or volume, depending on the 
commodi ty . 

Metric ton (tonne): 1000 kilograms or approximately 2204 pounds. 
Micro-bridge; see Bridging. 



MHHW: Mean higher high water. The average of the two high tides along coasts where 
the two daily high tides are unequal. 

Mini-bridge : see Bridging, 

MLLW : Mean lower low water. The average of the two low tides along coasts where 
the two daily low tides are unequal. 

Neo-Bulk : Cargoes shipped in large quantities and having some characteristics of 
bulk commodities. Neo-bulk cargoes in the Bay Area include autos, steel products 
and newsprint. 

Port packer : A di esel -powered container mover that picks up containers from the 
side; operates on Port property only. 

Refers : Pronounced reefers. Refrigerated containers used for perishable cargo, 
which plug into electrical connections on board ship, train, truck or at a backland 
storage facility. 

RO/RO : Roll on/Roll off. Cargo that is driven on or off a ship, usually trucks or 
heavy machinery. 

SFCT : San Francisco Container Terminal. 

Short ton : 2000 pounds or approximately 907 kilograms. 

Slingshot Operation : A system of assembling cars in which short train sections are 
sent from a port to a train yard for assembly into long unit trains. 

TEU ; Twenty Foot Equivalent Units or one 20-foot-l ong-container. Many containers 
are 40 feet long (sometimes known as FEU, Forty Foot Equivalent Unit) and equal to 
2 TEUs. Container ship capacity is often stated in terms of TEUs. 

TOFC : Trailer on flat car. Container plus truck trailer combination that rides as 
a unit on a flat car in a "piggy-back" arrangement. 

Throughput : The amount of cargo (usually in tons) that can be moved through a 
berth or terminal. Theoretical throughput is determined by a complex canbination 
of factors, such as ship size and frequency of arrivals, acres of backland for con- 
tainer storage, number of container cranes, and inland transport transfer and pro- 
cessi ng. 

Transtai ner ; A diesel-powered container mover that picks up containers from above; 
operates on Port property only. 

Unit train ; A long train operated without service frills or stops to connect and 
di sconnect cars between origin and destination. 



(see also inside front cover)